3 ms·

Source?

by eznzt 6y ago

Source?

geofft 6y ago
From the Google results for 'civil asset forfeture theft': https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops-took-more-stuff-from-people-than-burglars-did-last-year/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops-... https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/cops-seize-more-in-assets-than-burglars-steal-in-2014/ https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/cops-seize-mor... In 2014, $4.5B of property was legally seized via civil asset forfeiture, and $3.9B of property was burgled.
- gruez 6y ago
  >In 2014, $4.5B of property was legally seized via civil asset forfeiture, and $3.9B of property was burgled. But that's a weaker claim than the original, which argued 'Police are responsible for more theft in the United States (through "asset forfeiture") than "real" criminals', which I interpret to mean all thefts, rather than just burglary (a subset of '"real" criminals'). The former seems to be around 12B a year, according to https://www.statista.com/statistics/252440/property-stolen-and-recovered-in-the-us-by-type-and-value/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/252440/property-stolen-a....
  - ineedasername 6y ago
    And calling asset forfeiture "theft" is quite an extreme interpretation when it's mostly legitimate seizures from criminal enterprises (especially the drug trade).
    - geofft 6y ago
      It's only "legitimate" because there's a law saying they can do it. It's the removal of property without due process. I'm not on team "taxation is theft," but if this isn't theft, private property doesn't exist. (I'd be totally okay with seizing property from convicted criminal enterprises with due process. Excusing this because it happens to mostly affect people who turn out to have been criminals seems about as defensible in my mind as excusing vigilantes who happen to be mostly accurate.)
      - ascagnel_ 6y ago
        At most, “asset forfeiture” should be “asset frozen, for the duration of a civil trial against the owner”: - Anything movable (automobiles, jewelry, etc) can be seized by police and entered as evidence, but reasonable accommodations must be made (eg: if taking the defendant’s luxury car, a working car must be provided in its stead, so the defendant can still go to work, attend court, etc). If the defendant is found not guilty, the items must be returned without delay and without cost to the defendant, and the police are to be held responsible for any damage or wear during the period of the trial. - For immovable objects (real estate), the court may block any sale or transfer of ownership of the property. The court should evaluate the condition of the property and its contents at the start of legal proceedings, and the defendant would be responsible for any damage or loss (within their control) that occurs after that date. If the defendant loses, the police may take ownership of the home. - Cash must be placed into an escrow account. If the defendant is found not guilty, the funds must be released back to the defendant without delay, and the police should be held responsible for any money missing from the account.
    - outworlder 6y ago
      Not really, it's really theft. Were it not theft, the property would only be confiscated at the end of legal proceedings, IF it turned out it was related to the crime in question, IF the person was convicted. If those conditions did not hold, the assets should be returned. In actuality, no crime is required for the property to be confiscated. It can be as simple as carrying a "substantial" amount of money in your person during a road trip, and getting pulled over. Where substantial is subjective. Let's say 1k. Then your 1000 dollars get prosecuted, in a case titled "United States VS 1000 dollars in 10 dollar bills" and your money has to defend itself. I am not joking. This mechanism was created – supposedly – to empty the coffers of suspected drug dealers in cases police couldn't actually prove their guilt. It was designed to be used on people that haven't been convicted. That's not limited to money. It could be a house. It doesn't matter. All it requires is a 'preponderance of evidence' that the property is related to a crime, which is a low bar. And even if it turns out that the charges are valid, it's still not ok. Because it's related to a property, not a person, you get cases like this: https://www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/us/philadelphia-drug-bust-house-seizure/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/us/philadelphia-drug-bust-hou...
      - will4274 6y ago
        Hard disagree on principle. We have two types of court - criminal for locking people up, and civil for dealing with money. For locking people up, we require beyond a reasonable doubt. Better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted and all that. For taking somebody's money, we require it to more likely than not (preponderance of evidence) be the correct result. You call this a "low bar" but it's the same bar for a dispute between individuals. We say - it's only money - we should choose the result we believe to be the most correct, not err on the side of protecting the innocent even if it means letting many more guilty people go free. Why should the state be barred from using both courts? The parents in that news story knew that kid was selling drugs. They smelled it; they saw the money and the clothes and the car; they got helped out on the bills. 9 times out of 10, they are guilty as hell. But it's not 10 times out of 10, so we only take the house the drugs were sold out of, not lock them up.
        function_seven 6y ago

Source?

by eznzt 6y ago

Source?

From the Google results for 'civil asset forfeture theft': https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops-took-more-stuff-from-people-than-burglars-did-last-year/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops-... https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/cops-seize-more-in-assets-than-burglars-steal-in-2014/ https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/cops-seize-mor... In 2014, $4.5B of property was legally seized via civil asset forfeiture, and $3.9B of property was burgled.

gruez 6y ago
>In 2014, $4.5B of property was legally seized via civil asset forfeiture, and $3.9B of property was burgled. But that's a weaker claim than the original, which argued 'Police are responsible for more theft in the United States (through "asset forfeiture") than "real" criminals', which I interpret to mean all thefts, rather than just burglary (a subset of '"real" criminals'). The former seems to be around 12B a year, according to https://www.statista.com/statistics/252440/property-stolen-and-recovered-in-the-us-by-type-and-value/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/252440/property-stolen-a....
- ineedasername 6y ago
  And calling asset forfeiture "theft" is quite an extreme interpretation when it's mostly legitimate seizures from criminal enterprises (especially the drug trade).
  - geofft 6y ago
    It's only "legitimate" because there's a law saying they can do it. It's the removal of property without due process. I'm not on team "taxation is theft," but if this isn't theft, private property doesn't exist. (I'd be totally okay with seizing property from convicted criminal enterprises with due process. Excusing this because it happens to mostly affect people who turn out to have been criminals seems about as defensible in my mind as excusing vigilantes who happen to be mostly accurate.)
    - ascagnel_ 6y ago
      At most, “asset forfeiture” should be “asset frozen, for the duration of a civil trial against the owner”: - Anything movable (automobiles, jewelry, etc) can be seized by police and entered as evidence, but reasonable accommodations must be made (eg: if taking the defendant’s luxury car, a working car must be provided in its stead, so the defendant can still go to work, attend court, etc). If the defendant is found not guilty, the items must be returned without delay and without cost to the defendant, and the police are to be held responsible for any damage or wear during the period of the trial. - For immovable objects (real estate), the court may block any sale or transfer of ownership of the property. The court should evaluate the condition of the property and its contents at the start of legal proceedings, and the defendant would be responsible for any damage or loss (within their control) that occurs after that date. If the defendant loses, the police may take ownership of the home. - Cash must be placed into an escrow account. If the defendant is found not guilty, the funds must be released back to the defendant without delay, and the police should be held responsible for any money missing from the account.
  - outworlder 6y ago
    Not really, it's really theft. Were it not theft, the property would only be confiscated at the end of legal proceedings, IF it turned out it was related to the crime in question, IF the person was convicted. If those conditions did not hold, the assets should be returned. In actuality, no crime is required for the property to be confiscated. It can be as simple as carrying a "substantial" amount of money in your person during a road trip, and getting pulled over. Where substantial is subjective. Let's say 1k. Then your 1000 dollars get prosecuted, in a case titled "United States VS 1000 dollars in 10 dollar bills" and your money has to defend itself. I am not joking. This mechanism was created – supposedly – to empty the coffers of suspected drug dealers in cases police couldn't actually prove their guilt. It was designed to be used on people that haven't been convicted. That's not limited to money. It could be a house. It doesn't matter. All it requires is a 'preponderance of evidence' that the property is related to a crime, which is a low bar. And even if it turns out that the charges are valid, it's still not ok. Because it's related to a property, not a person, you get cases like this: https://www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/us/philadelphia-drug-bust-house-seizure/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/us/philadelphia-drug-bust-hou...
    - will4274 6y ago
      Hard disagree on principle. We have two types of court - criminal for locking people up, and civil for dealing with money. For locking people up, we require beyond a reasonable doubt. Better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted and all that. For taking somebody's money, we require it to more likely than not (preponderance of evidence) be the correct result. You call this a "low bar" but it's the same bar for a dispute between individuals. We say - it's only money - we should choose the result we believe to be the most correct, not err on the side of protecting the innocent even if it means letting many more guilty people go free. Why should the state be barred from using both courts? The parents in that news story knew that kid was selling drugs. They smelled it; they saw the money and the clothes and the car; they got helped out on the bills. 9 times out of 10, they are guilty as hell. But it's not 10 times out of 10, so we only take the house the drugs were sold out of, not lock them up.
      - function_seven 6y ago