5 ms·

Why is civil forfeiture such a conspiracy bugaboo in the first place?

jandrese 5y ago
It's not hard to imagine why people who are trying to instill distrust in the government would harp on an unpopular and frequently unjust program.
- freshair 5y ago
  It wouldn't surprise me if the other way around happens too. Quite a lot of people started off trusting their government by default; that's what public schools mostly teach after all. But when people witness these injustices again and again year after year, is it any wonder that some people will decide to throw the baby out with the bathwater?
  - stjohnswarts 5y ago
    It happened to me (an illegal search that violated my 4th amendment rights). I have family who are cops and I believe be genuinely great people. However if only 5% of cops are dirty that's still a lot of people who can shoot you in the face and most likely get away with it.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      Similar scenario for me. I told one friend who is a trooper about it, and they said this other guy sounds like a bad cop. I literally found blatant mistakes and misconduct with everyone we dealt with as part of the system (police, magistrates, judges, DA's office, clerks, etc).
anonymouse008 5y ago
In the 1700s a group of people got really upset that another group of people kept taking their things without asking - they had a motto 'no taxation without representation.' That group then founded a culture around this odd distrust of monarchs, that in later generations became a distrust of governments in all forms - even going as far as to conjure fantastical secret societies like the 'illuminati' that maintain a strong thumb on the scales of justice. It's just a part of the psyche that built the U.S.A. - it's a feature, not a bug
- larkost 5y ago
  For accuracy, please note that those people were more upset that the king exempted a company he had a stake in from that taxation (East India Tea Company), mostly in order to make up for some disaterous business dealings that threatened to los him and his friends a lot of money. Much of the rhetoric was dressed up as against taxes, but really all of the actual action was against unfairness in government (especially the lack of taxes). A worthy goal, and a decent reason to revolt. But I wish current politics would occasionally get the facts right.
  - nefitty 5y ago
    The popular, incorrect, narrative taught in schools also conveniently avoids introducing the concept of corruption via preferential treatment. I doubt there was a concerted effort in regards to that, but as a child I remember internalizing a concept of “we should resist external government force”, instead of the more apropos, “we have a duty to protest government corruption.”
    - anonymouse008 5y ago
      I'm not so sure that 'corect' lesson is lost in schools, it sounds more like “we should resist external government force” is just a short cut of 'absolute power corrupts absolutely.'
Clubber 5y ago
Because it's corrupt and police departments use it as a funding mechanism (without having to prove guilt). It costs more money to get your cash/assets back than the cash/assets are actually worth in most cases. In other words, if you have $500 in cash, the police can say, "I suspect that is being used in a drug deal," with no actual evidence, and they take your $500. It will cost you around $2500 in attorney fees to try to get it back. The federal government also gets a cut. In 2010, this accounted for about 2.5 billion dollars in revenue, no trial required. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United... "Civil forfeiture in the United States, also called civil asset forfeiture or civil judicial forfeiture,[1] is a process in which law enforcement officers take assets from persons suspected of involvement with crime or illegal activity without necessarily charging the owners with wrongdoing." I'm surprised you haven't heard about this. It's been going on for decades.
- slg 5y ago
  I believe there needs to be reform of civil forfeiture as much as the next guy, but I find it funny that 2010 is always the year used when a specific annual amount is cited. That year includes the forfeiture of Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme money which alone makes up some 20%-30% of that annual number. Also there aren't going to be a lot of people defending Madoff's right to the money that was taken through civil forfeiture. It is therefore a little misleading to use that specific year to instill fear about the practice without acknowledging that it is somewhat an outlier and that maybe there are valid uses for the practice.
  - opo 5y ago
    >...but I find it funny that 2010 is always the year used when a specific annual amount is cited. That year includes the forfeiture of Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme money which alone makes up some 20%-30% of that annual number. No, civil asset forfeiture is an ongoing problem and 2010 is not some unusual outlier. As the original article states: >...Still, boil down all the numbers and caveats above and you arrive at a simple fact: In the United States, in 2014, more cash and property transferred hands via civil asset forfeiture than via burglary. 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-... Looking more broadly: >...Since 2000, states and the federal government have forfeited at least $68.8 billion—that we know of. Not all states provided full data, so this figure drastically undercounts property taken from people through forfeiture. https://ij.org/press-release/new-report-finds-civil-forfeiture-rakes-in-billions-each-year-does-not-fight-crime-2/ https://ij.org/press-release/new-report-finds-civil-forfeitu...
tomohawk 5y ago
They take your property, then force you to sue to get it back. Meanwhile, you go out of business or go broke. https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/seize-first-question-later.pdf https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/seize-first-questi...

It's not hard to imagine why people who are trying to instill distrust in the government would harp on an unpopular and frequently unjust program.

freshair 5y ago
It wouldn't surprise me if the other way around happens too. Quite a lot of people started off trusting their government by default; that's what public schools mostly teach after all. But when people witness these injustices again and again year after year, is it any wonder that some people will decide to throw the baby out with the bathwater?
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  It happened to me (an illegal search that violated my 4th amendment rights). I have family who are cops and I believe be genuinely great people. However if only 5% of cops are dirty that's still a lot of people who can shoot you in the face and most likely get away with it.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    Similar scenario for me. I told one friend who is a trooper about it, and they said this other guy sounds like a bad cop. I literally found blatant mistakes and misconduct with everyone we dealt with as part of the system (police, magistrates, judges, DA's office, clerks, etc).

anonymouse008 5y ago

In the 1700s a group of people got really upset that another group of people kept taking their things without asking - they had a motto 'no taxation without representation.' That group then founded a culture around this odd distrust of monarchs, that in later generations became a distrust of governments in all forms - even going as far as to conjure fantastical secret societies like the 'illuminati' that maintain a strong thumb on the scales of justice. It's just a part of the psyche that built the U.S.A. - it's a feature, not a bug

larkost 5y ago
For accuracy, please note that those people were more upset that the king exempted a company he had a stake in from that taxation (East India Tea Company), mostly in order to make up for some disaterous business dealings that threatened to los him and his friends a lot of money. Much of the rhetoric was dressed up as against taxes, but really all of the actual action was against unfairness in government (especially the lack of taxes). A worthy goal, and a decent reason to revolt. But I wish current politics would occasionally get the facts right.
- nefitty 5y ago
  The popular, incorrect, narrative taught in schools also conveniently avoids introducing the concept of corruption via preferential treatment. I doubt there was a concerted effort in regards to that, but as a child I remember internalizing a concept of “we should resist external government force”, instead of the more apropos, “we have a duty to protest government corruption.”
  - anonymouse008 5y ago
    I'm not so sure that 'corect' lesson is lost in schools, it sounds more like “we should resist external government force” is just a short cut of 'absolute power corrupts absolutely.'

Clubber 5y ago

Because it's corrupt and police departments use it as a funding mechanism (without having to prove guilt). It costs more money to get your cash/assets back than the cash/assets are actually worth in most cases. In other words, if you have $500 in cash, the police can say, "I suspect that is being used in a drug deal," with no actual evidence, and they take your $500. It will cost you around $2500 in attorney fees to try to get it back. The federal government also gets a cut. In 2010, this accounted for about 2.5 billion dollars in revenue, no trial required. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United... "Civil forfeiture in the United States, also called civil asset forfeiture or civil judicial forfeiture,[1] is a process in which law enforcement officers take assets from persons suspected of involvement with crime or illegal activity without necessarily charging the owners with wrongdoing." I'm surprised you haven't heard about this. It's been going on for decades.

slg 5y ago
I believe there needs to be reform of civil forfeiture as much as the next guy, but I find it funny that 2010 is always the year used when a specific annual amount is cited. That year includes the forfeiture of Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme money which alone makes up some 20%-30% of that annual number. Also there aren't going to be a lot of people defending Madoff's right to the money that was taken through civil forfeiture. It is therefore a little misleading to use that specific year to instill fear about the practice without acknowledging that it is somewhat an outlier and that maybe there are valid uses for the practice.
- opo 5y ago
  >...but I find it funny that 2010 is always the year used when a specific annual amount is cited. That year includes the forfeiture of Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme money which alone makes up some 20%-30% of that annual number. No, civil asset forfeiture is an ongoing problem and 2010 is not some unusual outlier. As the original article states: >...Still, boil down all the numbers and caveats above and you arrive at a simple fact: In the United States, in 2014, more cash and property transferred hands via civil asset forfeiture than via burglary. 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-... Looking more broadly: >...Since 2000, states and the federal government have forfeited at least $68.8 billion—that we know of. Not all states provided full data, so this figure drastically undercounts property taken from people through forfeiture. https://ij.org/press-release/new-report-finds-civil-forfeiture-rakes-in-billions-each-year-does-not-fight-crime-2/ https://ij.org/press-release/new-report-finds-civil-forfeitu...

tomohawk 5y ago

They take your property, then force you to sue to get it back. Meanwhile, you go out of business or go broke. https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/seize-first-question-later.pdf https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/seize-first-questi...