4 ms·

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

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 6y 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 6y 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...
  - slg 6y ago
    I didn't say it wasn't a problem, but 2010 is always chosen specifically because of Madoff. Madoff also shows why that burglary comparison is meaningless. There is a long tail to civil forfeitures. You can have forfeitures measured in 9 figures and Madoff's is not the only example of this. There are almost never any burglaries of that value. Also burglaries are basically never justified, but sometimes civil forfeitures are justified. Therefore the total money taken is a worthless metric to compare between burglaries and civil forfeitures. And to reiterate, I agree with you that there needs to be changes to civil forfeiture. I just think we should be honest about the numbers and reasoning we use in that debate.
    - opo 6y ago
      >...I didn't say it wasn't a problem, but 2010 is always chosen specifically because of Madoff. Madoff also shows why that burglary comparison is meaningless. The article addresses this issue: >..."In a given year, one or two high-dollar cases may produce unusually large amounts of money — with a portion going back to victims — thereby telling a noisy story of year-to-year activity levels," the Institute for Justice explains. A big chunk of that 2014 deposit, for instance, was the $1.7 billion Bernie Madoff judgment, most of which flowed back to the victims. >For that reason, the net assets of the funds are usually seen as a more stable indicator — those numbers show how much money is left over in the funds each year after the federal government takes care of various obligations, like payments to victims. Since this number can reflect monies taken over multiple calendar years, it's less comparable to the annual burglary statistics. Still, even this more stable indicator hit $4.5 billion in 2014, according to the Institute for Justice — higher again than the burglary losses that year. >...Also burglaries are basically never justified, but sometimes civil forfeitures are justified. Criminal forfeitures are done after someone has been convicted and are justified. Civil forfeitures on the other hand are done before anyone has been convicted and the victim doesn't get free legal representation and is assumed guilty until proven innocent. Police agencies have to be funded, but it shouldn't be done by stealing from the public.
      - slg 6y ago
- miga 6y ago
  Would it count as forfeiture for the state, or should it rather be used for restitution to the victims?
  - slg 6y ago
    That is a false choice. It is both.[1] >Carl J. Shapiro and various related people and entities have agreed to forfeit $625 million to the United States, all of which will be made available to the victims of the fraudulent investment advisory business which was owned and operated by Bernard L. Madoff [1] - https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/newyork/press-releases/2010/nyfo120710.htm https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/newyork/press-releases/201...
- pigeonhole123 6y ago
  So let's say the number is 50% lower. That makes it okay? Or 90% lower. Just to be nice. Bernie Madoff turned himself in and was convicted. Sounds like they could have seized the money some other way.
  - slg 6y ago
    I said I wanted civil forfeiture reform. However being morally right doesn't justify fudging the numbers. If the number is 50% or 90% lower and that weakens our point, so be it.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Clubber 6y ago
  If you look at the wikipedia article you'll notice a graph about the equitable sharing agreement. This is an agreement that the federal government has with state and local police where anything seized is shared with the federal government. Madoff's seizer wouldn't be included in that number I wouldn't think, but if it was, 2010 was only slightly higher than 2007, 2008 and 2009. So the 2010 thing is just a coincidence and either isn't included in the equitable sharing agreement, or if it is, it shows the Madoff seizure is just a drop in the bucket. Either way, it's pretty bad. The easy fix for civil forfeiture is assign the burden of proof to the state, not the citizen. Some states have done this very thing.
- Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
  > I believe there needs to be reform of civil forfeiture as much as the next guy If by "reform" you mean "complete elimination", then I agree. Civil forfeiture is such a clear and obvious violation of your Fourth Amendment rights. How it lasted more than even a few DAYS before being struck down by even the lowest level courts is beyond me.
  - HideousKojima 6y ago
    Civil forfeiture has its origins in customs law where a ship transporting contraband would be seized along with its contents. This was because in the 1600's to 1800's it wasn't feasible to track down and punish the owners of the goods/ship in a foreign country assuming you could even figure that out. Of course the practice got expanded to contexts and situations that have nothing to do with smuggling because government will use any excuse to expand its powers.
  - slg 6y ago
    My first change would be to shift the burden of proof. Right now civil forfeiture includes a presumption of guilt. Switch that to a presumption of innocence and many of these problems would go away. That presumption of guilt is somewhat central to the civil forfeiture process, so whether this a a "reform" or "complete elimination" is a semantic debate. There are certainly some instances in which the forfeiture is just. The previous mentioned Madoff case is one example.

slg 6y 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 6y 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...
- slg 6y ago
  I didn't say it wasn't a problem, but 2010 is always chosen specifically because of Madoff. Madoff also shows why that burglary comparison is meaningless. There is a long tail to civil forfeitures. You can have forfeitures measured in 9 figures and Madoff's is not the only example of this. There are almost never any burglaries of that value. Also burglaries are basically never justified, but sometimes civil forfeitures are justified. Therefore the total money taken is a worthless metric to compare between burglaries and civil forfeitures. And to reiterate, I agree with you that there needs to be changes to civil forfeiture. I just think we should be honest about the numbers and reasoning we use in that debate.
  - opo 6y ago
    >...I didn't say it wasn't a problem, but 2010 is always chosen specifically because of Madoff. Madoff also shows why that burglary comparison is meaningless. The article addresses this issue: >..."In a given year, one or two high-dollar cases may produce unusually large amounts of money — with a portion going back to victims — thereby telling a noisy story of year-to-year activity levels," the Institute for Justice explains. A big chunk of that 2014 deposit, for instance, was the $1.7 billion Bernie Madoff judgment, most of which flowed back to the victims. >For that reason, the net assets of the funds are usually seen as a more stable indicator — those numbers show how much money is left over in the funds each year after the federal government takes care of various obligations, like payments to victims. Since this number can reflect monies taken over multiple calendar years, it's less comparable to the annual burglary statistics. Still, even this more stable indicator hit $4.5 billion in 2014, according to the Institute for Justice — higher again than the burglary losses that year. >...Also burglaries are basically never justified, but sometimes civil forfeitures are justified. Criminal forfeitures are done after someone has been convicted and are justified. Civil forfeitures on the other hand are done before anyone has been convicted and the victim doesn't get free legal representation and is assumed guilty until proven innocent. Police agencies have to be funded, but it shouldn't be done by stealing from the public.
    - slg 6y ago
miga 6y ago
Would it count as forfeiture for the state, or should it rather be used for restitution to the victims?
- slg 6y ago
  That is a false choice. It is both.[1] >Carl J. Shapiro and various related people and entities have agreed to forfeit $625 million to the United States, all of which will be made available to the victims of the fraudulent investment advisory business which was owned and operated by Bernard L. Madoff [1] - https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/newyork/press-releases/2010/nyfo120710.htm https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/newyork/press-releases/201...
pigeonhole123 6y ago
So let's say the number is 50% lower. That makes it okay? Or 90% lower. Just to be nice. Bernie Madoff turned himself in and was convicted. Sounds like they could have seized the money some other way.
- slg 6y ago
  I said I wanted civil forfeiture reform. However being morally right doesn't justify fudging the numbers. If the number is 50% or 90% lower and that weakens our point, so be it.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Clubber 6y ago
If you look at the wikipedia article you'll notice a graph about the equitable sharing agreement. This is an agreement that the federal government has with state and local police where anything seized is shared with the federal government. Madoff's seizer wouldn't be included in that number I wouldn't think, but if it was, 2010 was only slightly higher than 2007, 2008 and 2009. So the 2010 thing is just a coincidence and either isn't included in the equitable sharing agreement, or if it is, it shows the Madoff seizure is just a drop in the bucket. Either way, it's pretty bad. The easy fix for civil forfeiture is assign the burden of proof to the state, not the citizen. Some states have done this very thing.
Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
> I believe there needs to be reform of civil forfeiture as much as the next guy If by "reform" you mean "complete elimination", then I agree. Civil forfeiture is such a clear and obvious violation of your Fourth Amendment rights. How it lasted more than even a few DAYS before being struck down by even the lowest level courts is beyond me.
- HideousKojima 6y ago
  Civil forfeiture has its origins in customs law where a ship transporting contraband would be seized along with its contents. This was because in the 1600's to 1800's it wasn't feasible to track down and punish the owners of the goods/ship in a foreign country assuming you could even figure that out. Of course the practice got expanded to contexts and situations that have nothing to do with smuggling because government will use any excuse to expand its powers.
- slg 6y ago
  My first change would be to shift the burden of proof. Right now civil forfeiture includes a presumption of guilt. Switch that to a presumption of innocence and many of these problems would go away. That presumption of guilt is somewhat central to the civil forfeiture process, so whether this a a "reform" or "complete elimination" is a semantic debate. There are certainly some instances in which the forfeiture is just. The previous mentioned Madoff case is one example.