4 ms·

>...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.

by opo 5y 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 5y ago
That $4.5 number is completely worthless as a comparison to burglaries. It is just the number in the fund at the end of the year. You are basically trying to assume a person's income based off the money in their checking account. It is nonsensical. I have said elsewhere in this thread that the burden of proof shouldn't be on the owner to prove innocence, but I'm not sure simply changing that turns it into criminal forfeiture. My understanding is that criminal forfeiture only happens when the owner is convicted of a crime. Meanwhile civil forfeiture can happen when the crime is committed by someone else (technically the item being forfeited). Back to the Madoff example, not all of the money was taken from Madoff directly. Other people benefited from Madoff's crimes without being aware that crimes were being committed. I think it is acceptable for that third party profit to be forfeited despite the owners not committing a crime.
- opo 5y ago
  >...That $4.5 number is completely worthless as a comparison to burglaries. It gives a sense of the scale of the abuse. A number of states refused to give out the data, so it is a low estimate. >...My understanding is that criminal forfeiture only happens when the owner is convicted of a crime. Yes, and that is justifiable. Abuses like confiscating a person's money because they went on a domestic airline flight with a large amount of cash are not justifiable. >...Back to the Madoff example, not all of the money was taken from Madoff directly. It is a mistake to just focus on a large forfeiture as that is rare: >...Data from 21 states show half of all currency forfeitures are worth less than $1,300, hardly the stuff of vast criminal enterprises and far less than it would cost to hire an attorney to fight back. 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...

by opo 5y ago

slg 5y ago

That $4.5 number is completely worthless as a comparison to burglaries. It is just the number in the fund at the end of the year. You are basically trying to assume a person's income based off the money in their checking account. It is nonsensical. I have said elsewhere in this thread that the burden of proof shouldn't be on the owner to prove innocence, but I'm not sure simply changing that turns it into criminal forfeiture. My understanding is that criminal forfeiture only happens when the owner is convicted of a crime. Meanwhile civil forfeiture can happen when the crime is committed by someone else (technically the item being forfeited). Back to the Madoff example, not all of the money was taken from Madoff directly. Other people benefited from Madoff's crimes without being aware that crimes were being committed. I think it is acceptable for that third party profit to be forfeited despite the owners not committing a crime.

opo 5y ago
>...That $4.5 number is completely worthless as a comparison to burglaries. It gives a sense of the scale of the abuse. A number of states refused to give out the data, so it is a low estimate. >...My understanding is that criminal forfeiture only happens when the owner is convicted of a crime. Yes, and that is justifiable. Abuses like confiscating a person's money because they went on a domestic airline flight with a large amount of cash are not justifiable. >...Back to the Madoff example, not all of the money was taken from Madoff directly. It is a mistake to just focus on a large forfeiture as that is rare: >...Data from 21 states show half of all currency forfeitures are worth less than $1,300, hardly the stuff of vast criminal enterprises and far less than it would cost to hire an attorney to fight back. 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...