4 ms·
And in no event should the seized money benefit the enforcement agency itself. What an absurd conflict of interest.
by eli 5y ago
And in no event should the seized money benefit the enforcement agency itself. What an absurd conflict of interest.
- ChrisMarshallNY 5y agoThis has been a huge problem at the state, county, and municipality level, for many years. John Oliver did a piece about it, a few years ago[0]. Some places actually create budgets, based on forfeiture. There's a town in Texas, that basically set themselves up as "highwaymen"[1] (Would have been ironic, if the town was named "Turpin"). Gives a whole new meaning to "Quota Night." I remember reading about a person around these parts, that was unable to get their property back, after they were cleared, because the police department had already sold it. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenaha,_Texas#Asset_forfeiture_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenaha,_Texas#Asset_forfeiture...
- giantg2 5y agoI think New Mexico was actually the state with the reputation. So much so that I think they recently passed a law to help fix it.
- adventured 5y agoUS systems of authority often specialize in conflicts of interest. I think it's obviously by design, both sides ride the gravy train (govt / private sector). The FDA gets ~46% ($2.7b of $5.9b for 2019) of its operational funding from the pharma industry. The telecom industry and FCC exchange employees routinely, as do Wall Street and the Treasury & Fed. The specialization makes sense, however these prominent figures, so primed for conflict of interest, should clearly be barred from doing that for N time (5-10 years at least).
- jjk166 5y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture