6 ms·

"In civil forfeitures, no criminal conviction is required. The government just needs to prove that it’s more likely than not that the money or property it seeks

• ravar 5y ago
  We have been there for a while.
• anonporridge 5y ago
  It's an important tool for repressing criminals and minorities.
  • HonestOp001 5y ago
    Also in padding the budgets of the law enforcement agencies!
  • mywittyname 5y ago
    You don't have to be a criminal or a minority to be affected. There have been lots of reports of old, white men being hit by this for having the audacity to travel around with >$10k in cash. Steve Lehto's YouTube channel covers these stories a lot.
  • jatone 5y ago
    no its not.
  • dekken_ 5y ago
    I too can make claims without any evidence.
    • yunohn 5y ago
      The article we’re all commenting on is really good evidence. But here’s more: > A 1993 investigation by The Orlando Sentinel revealed that nine of every 10 motorists who were stopped and stripped of their cash by police in Volusia County, Florida, were either black or Hispanic, and three out of four were never charged with a crime. In Philadelphia, where nearly 300 houses are seized annually, African Americans make up 44% of the population but 63% of house seizures and 71% of cash forfeitures unaccompanied by a conviction. Forfeiture is also most likely to affect economically disadvantaged communities: One study found that areas with high income inequality were targeted for civil forfeiture operations, likely because these police departments have limited funding and are inclined to use forfeiture to secure needed revenue. source: https://www.splcenter.org/20171030/civil-asset-forfeiture-unfair-undemocratic-and-un-american https://www.splcenter.org/20171030/civil-asset-forfeiture-un...
      • tomp 5y ago
        Have the race numbers been regressed against wealth/income? I'd reckon it's mostly just poor discrimination (i.e. people who can't afford a lawyer) rather than straight racism.
        • yunohn 5y ago
          “Indirect” racism is also racism. There may be a semantic difference, but no practical difference to the victims.
          • tomp 5y ago
            I disagree. Correct identification of root cause guides effective solutions. If you solve "indirect racism" just for one race, the rest of poor people are still screwed. If you solve the original cause (poverty), everyone is better off.
            • yunohn 5y ago
              Nirvana fallacy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy While it would be great if we could Solve Poverty (TM), I think reducing legalized theft of poor people’s assets would be a great first step. Nobody in this thread was arguing that we should solve it only for some races, rather that it does seem to affect them more often.
      • dekken_ 5y ago
        I was more referring to the "criminals" part
  • throw63738 5y ago
    Yeah, whyties always get refund from police. After showing their race ID and prooving their aryan purity!
• ihsw 5y ago
  Burden of proof is a sliding scale: * reasonable suspicion * probably cause * preponderance of evidence * beyond reasonable doubt Civil forfeiture lies at the loosest end of this -- reasonable suspicion. Many laws protect individuals from being deprived of their liberties but civil forfeiture operates under the assumption that the "loot" is an "individual."
• joshAg 5y ago
  oh! It gets worse. The value of goods taken yearly through civil forfeiture is greater than the value of goods reported stolen. 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-...
  • realPubkey 5y ago
    Well there are way more and easier ways to get illegal money without directly stealing it.
  • sudosysgen 5y ago
    Similarly, after civil asset forfeiture the #2 form of theft is wage theft. EDIT : I've been corrected by someone below - wage theft is the #1 form of theft, civil asset forfeiture is #2
    • pope_meat 5y ago
      But let's have a moral panic about the "organized gangs robbing Walgreens" instead, perhaps 67 news stories a day about it?
      • Aerroon 5y ago
        Libertarians have been making noise about this issue for years/decades, but few people seem to care.
      • twirlock 5y ago
        The organized gangs of wall greens don't carry guns and threaten to shoot people for noncompliance.
      • d0gsg0w00f 5y ago
        If it's really that bad that problem will just solve itself: they'll just close all the stores.
      • wearywanderer 5y ago
• jahnu 5y ago
  Decent enough summary from John Oliver here (if you can put up with his daft, sitcom-like humour) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks
• altano 5y ago
  > This feels like some third world country shit. It’s very frustrating when people say things like this because until it “feels like some typical US shit” nothing can get better. Let’s get past all the American Exceptionalism ASAP please.
  • jjeaff 5y ago
    You don't have to believe in American exceptionalism to believe that America is not as bad as most 3rd world countries in most metrics.
    • Kaze404 5y ago
      I would much rather live in most 3rd world countries than the USA.
      • ben_w 5y ago
        If I was forced by an evil wizard to choose between switching places with a random American or a random Kenyan (the single 3rd world country I’ve been to as an adult), I would absolutely choose American. Harder to say if I was still me with my current skills and wealth and it was a forced relocating to Kenya or the USA, but I strongly suspect I’d still choose the states. Not certain, but strongly suspect.
      • d0gsg0w00f 5y ago
        Luckily, this is something you're free to say and free to do.
        • jessaustin 5y ago
          Don't make unfounded assumptions. Most humans are not "free" to live in USA.
        • Kaze404 5y ago
          While I disagree, your gotcha won't work on someone who already lives in a third world country like me.
• njovin 5y ago
  These laws continue to be abused by law enforcement to bully business owners who are operating in gray areas of the law, whether the gray-ness is caused by misaligned state vs. federal laws or unclear licensing and operation requirements. https://web.archive.org/web/20200101161314/https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/watchdog/sd-me-asset-forfeiture-20170417-story.html https://web.archive.org/web/20200101161314/https://www.sandi... https://www.inc.com/will-yakowicz/james-slatic-asset-forfeiture-supreme-court-petition.html https://www.inc.com/will-yakowicz/james-slatic-asset-forfeit...
• 5faulker 5y ago
  It's Los Angeles baby.
• downandout 5y ago
  It gets even scarier. I don’t want to get political, but our current President, Joe Biden, was the driving force behind our civil forfeiture laws as they exist today. So any push for reform certainly won’t be coming from the executive branch. https://fee.org/articles/how-a-young-joe-biden-became-the-architect-of-the-governments-asset-forfeiture-program/ https://fee.org/articles/how-a-young-joe-biden-became-the-ar...
• openasocket 5y ago
  That's the "civil" in civil asset forfeiture. It isn't a criminal legal action, it takes place in a civil court. Essentially the government is suing you, which has a variety of implications. First is the reduced standard: instead of "beyond a reasonable doubt", we have "more likely than not". You also don't have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford legal counsel you have to represent yourself, no public defender will be made available for you. Another surprising fact: immigration courts are civil courts, so the same facts as above apply to them. There's been multiple cases where undocumented minors (including those as young as 3) have been forced to represent themselves in court.
• gnulinux 5y ago
  It gets much much worse. Did you know that civil forfeiture recently surpassed the $ amount burglars steal from people. https://www.nemannlawoffices.com/blog/law-enforcement-seized-more-from-people-than-burglars-stole-last-year.cfm https://www.nemannlawoffices.com/blog/law-enforcement-seized... The way I see this federal government steals from people with: 1. No mechanism to get their assets back 2. No mechanism to lawfully prove whether civil forfeiture was rightful 3. No special political mechanism to moderate civil forfeiture We're essentially dealing with police stealing money from us. What surprises me is all these people who are against taxes, which is a legal framework for individuals to pay their debt back to society in a way: 1. You can always argue your money back. There is an established mechanism. 2. It needs to be proven precisely whether you owe that money. 3. It is one of political institutions primary goal to moderate taxes. Not to mention countless tax breaks people have almost every year. I feel extremely confused how people look at this data and decide taxes are a much bigger problem, when government has ability to straight up steal from us for whatever reason, and they do so more than other private citizens (i.e. burglars). Complete bonkers. This is beyond 3rd world country issue, this is systematic, formalized theft -- in a way that can only be possible in the US.
• altacc 5y ago
  "If you've done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to fear." is the mantra of people who don't yet realise how flawed legal systems across the world really are.
• newacct583 5y ago
  > Wow... I had no idea. This feels like some third world country shit. There is coverage over this area of law being abused at least once a month. You had no idea because you aren't reading the journalism that is reporting it. I mean, you're right. This is indeed third world country shit. But most of the time it happens to poor black guys so no one cares.
• sneak 5y ago
  Here's an excellent overview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks