6 ms·

> Basically, asset seizure enables the state to go after someone without no known source of income flaunting millions of dollars in sports cars, mansions, etc.

by bdhess 8y ago

> Basically, asset seizure enables the state to go after someone without no known source of income flaunting millions of dollars in sports cars, mansions, etc. Even if the state has no idea _what_ the suspect doing, just that they've got millions of dollars and no explanation on where it came from. Why should seizing assets be okay under those circumstances? > In this modern world of ransomware, mail-order drug trade and other lucrative side jobs, invisible crime is easier and more prevalent than ever. In this modern world of internet-connected financial institutions and big data, following large amounts of money through the system is easier and more prevalent than ever.

nikanj 8y ago
>> Basically, asset seizure enables the state to go after someone without no known source of income flaunting millions of dollars in sports cars, mansions, etc. Even if the state has no idea _what_ the suspect doing, just that they've got millions of dollars and no explanation on where it came from. > Why should seizing assets be okay under those circumstances? That one is a value judgement, and there is no right answer. Personally, I think the system should be biased to discourage crime, even if it's very unlikely you'll get caught. I know others place the value of freedom higher than the value of, well, fairness. I prefer a nation where crime doesn't pay, or if it does, you lose the spoils.
- abecedarius 8y ago
  Lower probability of conviction can be addressed by increased severity of punishment upon conviction.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
    If that were true then we should expect the US to have a significantly lower rate of crime than other Western democracies given that: the United States had by far the highest reported rate of incarceration in the world. Today, adult incarceration rates of the Western European democracies average around 100 per 100,000, and in the common law countries of Australia and Canada, the rates are only slightly higher. The U.S. rate in 2012 was seven times higher, at 707 per 100,000.[1] For this to be possible the US must have been incarcerating more people, for longer, than other countries, which by your logic would reduce the rate of crime. I was under the impression it was widely accepted that increased severity of punishment had only a small effect on rates of crime. The report I've referenced seems to agree. 1. Refer page 335 here http://johnjay.jjay.cuny.edu/nrc/NAS_report_on_incarceration.pdf http://johnjay.jjay.cuny.edu/nrc/NAS_report_on_incarceration... I found that PDF here https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/ethics-in-question/201509/harsh-justice https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/ethics-in-question/2...

by bdhess 8y ago

nikanj 8y ago

>> Basically, asset seizure enables the state to go after someone without no known source of income flaunting millions of dollars in sports cars, mansions, etc. Even if the state has no idea _what_ the suspect doing, just that they've got millions of dollars and no explanation on where it came from. > Why should seizing assets be okay under those circumstances? That one is a value judgement, and there is no right answer. Personally, I think the system should be biased to discourage crime, even if it's very unlikely you'll get caught. I know others place the value of freedom higher than the value of, well, fairness. I prefer a nation where crime doesn't pay, or if it does, you lose the spoils.

abecedarius 8y ago
Lower probability of conviction can be addressed by increased severity of punishment upon conviction.
- TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
  If that were true then we should expect the US to have a significantly lower rate of crime than other Western democracies given that: the United States had by far the highest reported rate of incarceration in the world. Today, adult incarceration rates of the Western European democracies average around 100 per 100,000, and in the common law countries of Australia and Canada, the rates are only slightly higher. The U.S. rate in 2012 was seven times higher, at 707 per 100,000.[1] For this to be possible the US must have been incarcerating more people, for longer, than other countries, which by your logic would reduce the rate of crime. I was under the impression it was widely accepted that increased severity of punishment had only a small effect on rates of crime. The report I've referenced seems to agree. 1. Refer page 335 here http://johnjay.jjay.cuny.edu/nrc/NAS_report_on_incarceration.pdf http://johnjay.jjay.cuny.edu/nrc/NAS_report_on_incarceration... I found that PDF here https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/ethics-in-question/201509/harsh-justice https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/ethics-in-question/2...