5 ms·
I've long had an idea for solving the civil asset forfeiture problem. It's simply this: any asset seized must go to the general fund, not into a law enforcemen
by ccleve 4y ago
I've long had an idea for solving the civil asset forfeiture problem.
It's simply this: any asset seized must go to the general fund, not into a law enforcement fund.
If a local police department seizes cash or a car, that asset goes to the state. If federal law enforcement does the same, it goes to the treasury, not the FBI or ATF or the Justice Department.
This small change would remove the incentive to seize assets for any reason other than stopping criminals.
We also need due-process reforms, but this would be a good start. Government departments should never profit from criminal activity.
- fractallyte 4y agoOr, another idea, for when you're out of luck, furious, and have nothing to lose: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120768/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120768/
- onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago> This small change would remove the incentive to seize assets for any reason other than stopping criminals. What about spite?
- bonestamp2 4y agoI had the same thought. Some police have punished citizens for petty reasons and that door is still wide open in this solution. It's still better than what we have now, but it's not perfect. Perhaps an additional measure could be that a jury of the people should decide if the property is returned to the person or if it goes to the state/treasury. Most people seem to think civil forfeiture is problematic.
- sowbug 4y agoOr go a step farther: any asset seized (including money) must be publicly destroyed. Set fire to the defendant's pile of cash in the town square, while everyone watches. This would remove the financial incentive for seizure and would preserve its punitive aspect, both general and specific deterrence. As a check against wanton destruction, the seizing entity should remain subject to a civil cause of action of conversion (in regular language, liable for taking stuff) in case the defendant (or now plaintiff) can prove that the seizure didn't follow due process, or that the underlying justification for seizure in the first place was unfounded. Obviously, this suggestion isn't fully baked. But it's worth considering why anyone should benefit from punitive measures such as asset seizure (or punitive damages in a civil lawsuit).
- lend000 4y agoOr auctioned with the proceeds going towards a small UBI check.
- im3w1l 4y agoWould be a shame to burn a Rembrandt.
- diydsp 4y agoIn this scenario, the circumstances that would lead to burning a Rembrandt would be quite extreme. The convicted criminal would have to use the Rembrandt in crime and the punishment would have to be a fine in excess of the value of the Rembrandt. But besides that: Just because it would be a "shame," doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. After all, some people think it would be fun to burn a Rembrandt.
- chrismcb 4y agoThis seems worse. At least today I have a small chance of getting my item returned. The reality is, just don't sieze. It sieze AFTER the trial and conviction.
- bagels 4y agoIt's not a solution. Local police sieze. Hand over to general fund, and somehow, their budget grows.
- ffggvv 4y agohow about a strong punishment for unjust seizures with an independent oversight board
- mdavis6890 4y agoYeah, I had the same idea. Someone else pointed out to me how easy it would be for a kick back system to be arranged, with the police stealing money for the general find and being rewarded in return with larger budgets or other tit for tat arrangements. So I changed my mind. Better simply to not allow it at all.
- chrismcb 4y agoThe solution is to not sieze. It do it after a conviction. And to stop the war on drugs