4 ms·
> They can use discretion on civil asset forfeiture too, if they want. That's how it works already. That's also why they can do it to whoever they like.
by walls 4y ago
> They can use discretion on civil asset forfeiture too, if they want.
That's how it works already. That's also why they can do it to whoever they like.
- kodah 4y agoRight, leaving discretion without oversight is a massive gap. I am advocating that something be done. What are you advocating?
- pdabbadabba 4y agoBut this is literally the first time in this thread that you've mentioned "oversight." Perhaps you're advocating that something be done, but I cannot tell what it is. It seems like you've been suggesting just that "the relevant authorities should use their discretion." That doesn't strike me (or, apparently, others) as much of a reform, since that exactly describes the status quo, which does not seem to be working. What is the role for oversight that you're suggesting? Who does the overseeing? How?
- s1artibartfast 4y agokodah was saying we should try something >I'd encourage anything at this point. fennecfoxen was advocating that it isnt worth trying something >You want meaningful reform on anything within 500 miles of this topic from the legislature? Good luck. The goalposts were clearly moved from if even attempting reform is a waste of time, to having a workable solution
- fennecfoxen 4y agoexcuse me; i commented on the legislature's allergic reaction to actually making changes to the law in this area, noting the difficulty of the task which you have chosen.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoI certainly read that as defeatism. Is there an alternative avenue for reform outside the legislature, independent of how difficult it is? Legislatures don't want to make any change unless the people want it. People have to demand it.