4 ms·

Civil asset forfeiture is disgusting and ought to be ruled unconstitutional. However, most of the stuff they seize really is crime-related.

wahnfrieden 3y ago
Source? Or did you make that up
- NotYourLawyer 3y ago
  It doesn’t pass the smell test that it could be false. Call that “made up” if you like.
  - fnordfnordfnord 3y ago
    Hand waving a reasonable question away.
standardUser 3y ago
That's because there's too many crimes, mostly relating to drugs. If we were to make caffeine illegal tomorrow then there would be a lot of "crime-related" money seized from the coffee industry, but it's only "crime-related" because we're dumb enough to consider a victimless act a crime.
- 221qqwe 3y ago
  Technically indiscriminately selling literal poison with a very low LD50 to people with "somewhat" poor impulse control is a victimless crime, sure. Of course, I guess, fentanyl et al. are a thing because more benign drugs were criminalized for so long. However in no way does that make hard drugs comparable to caffeine though... Do you believe that all substances must be legalized and widely available?
  - standardUser 3y ago
    I believe the current system is an abject failure that has seriously curtailed civil liberties, costs an endless fortune of taxpayer money, completely fails to help people who do have serious addiction problems and ruins lives, mostly of more vulnerable people, with fines and criminal records and jail time. It also force people to buy impure drugs, directly resulting in many deaths and accidental overdoses, including a huge part of the fentanyl death toll. I think most of the popular drugs should be legalized with various levels of access and greater restrictions for the drugs we known are most prone to serious abuse, such as opioids and speed (along with nicotine and alcohol). There's simply no reason a grown adult shouldn't be able to smoke a joint or eat some mushrooms or do some lines of coke in their own home - and buy them safely and legally without undue fear of impurities.
    - 221qqwe 3y ago
      > I think most of the popular drugs should be legalized Under what circumstances do you think fentanyl could be legalized? Opioids are already legal to some degree, it's just over-prescribing them had a massive backlash and shifting to a completely opposite direction (not that addiction was ever technically a valid reason to get a prescription). > There's simply no reason a grown adult shouldn't be able to smoke a joint Yes, but you still agree we have to draw a line at some point. How do we handle substances that end up being on the other side of it? Do we just ignore them and their distribution not to "curtail civil liberties"? > who do have serious addiction problems and ruins lives, mostly of more vulnerable people, with fines and criminal records and jail time That's awful and should not happen. But is it still that widespread these days? Many(most?) places just seem to ignore addicts and abandon them without providing any real support. > along with nicotine and alcohol What's wrong with nicotine? It's mostly harmless (even if quite addictive) in it's pure form... Anyway if you actually consider even alcohol to be on the other side of that line, I'm not quite sure what you're proposing? If weed and mushrooms are legalized we're still left with 95%+ of all drugs related problems we had before that.
LammyL 3y ago
If it is crime related, then the courts could impose criminal asset forfeiture (aka a fine) after a criminal conviction. Civil asset forfeiture needs to disappear completely and forever.
- lnxg33k1 3y ago
  It is sometimes not as straightforward, as I think we have that in order to prevent people from having enough funds to escape courts, as in, without money it's harder to flee law. Now some middle class criminals might be affected, some high class criminals might have funds around the world in rogue states and might be able to flee anyway, the issue as usual seem to be of the randomers, always taking the biggest hit of any law done to prevent crime But I think in this case the issue is not the tool to freeze or seize assets in itself, which used pragmatically helps society, is the accountability of those who exploit it I have vibes regarding this like those who said ok there are some shitty cops who shot people, then let’s defund the police
- hgsgm 3y ago
  They do and that is included in the total, as the article states.
aqme28 3y ago
> However, most of the stuff they seize really is crime-related. I don't really see how that matters. Most people tried for murder are guilty, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have their day in court.
- NotYourLawyer 3y ago
  It’s relevant to the claim that cops are taking more stuff than burglars. Most of the stuff the cops are taking is crime proceeds!
  - lamontcg 3y ago
    So, prove it.
  - test098 3y ago
    > Most of the stuff the cops are taking is crime proceeds! you keep saying this but you have no data whatsoever to support this claim.
Finnucane 3y ago
Sure, but penalties for crimes have limits and civil forfeiture doesn't, which raises constitutional issues itself.
RajT88 3y ago
For seizures of sums of cash as little as $100 (mentioned in the article), I very much doubt that to be true. > In practice, however, civil forfeiture is often wielded against regular people who aren’t doing anything wrong. In many states the typical cash forfeiture amount is in the hundreds of dollars — $423 in Michigan, or $369 in Pennsylvania, according to the latest data from the Institute for Justice, a law firm that represents forfeiture victims and tracks the practice nationwide. In many cities police departments have been known to make seizures of less than $100 on the flimsiest pretenses, typically concentrated in the poorest neighborhoods. The usage of 'typical' sounds like they mean 'average', for such precise numbers.
- NotYourLawyer 3y ago
  I didn’t realize IJ was involved in this, but good for them. They do great work.
phone8675309 3y ago
> However, most of the stuff they seize really is crime-related. Torture might be an effective way to get most criminals to confess and getting a slam dunk conviction when going to trial where a jury may mistakenly exonerate them, but that doesn't mean that it's the _right_ or even _moral_ way to do so. Further, ask yourself this - what is a crime? Answer - it's whatever the legislature says it is, and as a political body they are influenced by what the dominant group in power wants.
test098 3y ago
how are you able to make this claim? "Although there are accessible statistics of seizures at the federal level, it often happens that the totals of forfeitures from both criminals and innocent owners are combined; for example, one report was that in 2010, government seized $2.5 billion in assets from criminals and innocent owners by forfeiture methods,[16] and the totals of assets seized incorrectly from innocent owners was not separated statistically. Further, since the United States is a federal republic with governments at both the national and state level, there are civil forfeiture seizures at the state level, which are not tracked and recorded in any central database,[12] which make it difficult to make assessments, since state laws and procedures vary widely." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States#Prevalence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...
- NotYourLawyer 3y ago
  There’s just no way that they’re mostly seizing innocent people’s stuff.
  - test098 3y ago
    your feelings about the matter isn't actual data though
phyllistine 3y ago
[Citation Needed]

wahnfrieden 3y ago

Source? Or did you make that up

NotYourLawyer 3y ago
It doesn’t pass the smell test that it could be false. Call that “made up” if you like.
- fnordfnordfnord 3y ago
  Hand waving a reasonable question away.

standardUser 3y ago

That's because there's too many crimes, mostly relating to drugs. If we were to make caffeine illegal tomorrow then there would be a lot of "crime-related" money seized from the coffee industry, but it's only "crime-related" because we're dumb enough to consider a victimless act a crime.

221qqwe 3y ago
Technically indiscriminately selling literal poison with a very low LD50 to people with "somewhat" poor impulse control is a victimless crime, sure. Of course, I guess, fentanyl et al. are a thing because more benign drugs were criminalized for so long. However in no way does that make hard drugs comparable to caffeine though... Do you believe that all substances must be legalized and widely available?
- standardUser 3y ago
  I believe the current system is an abject failure that has seriously curtailed civil liberties, costs an endless fortune of taxpayer money, completely fails to help people who do have serious addiction problems and ruins lives, mostly of more vulnerable people, with fines and criminal records and jail time. It also force people to buy impure drugs, directly resulting in many deaths and accidental overdoses, including a huge part of the fentanyl death toll. I think most of the popular drugs should be legalized with various levels of access and greater restrictions for the drugs we known are most prone to serious abuse, such as opioids and speed (along with nicotine and alcohol). There's simply no reason a grown adult shouldn't be able to smoke a joint or eat some mushrooms or do some lines of coke in their own home - and buy them safely and legally without undue fear of impurities.
  - 221qqwe 3y ago
    > I think most of the popular drugs should be legalized Under what circumstances do you think fentanyl could be legalized? Opioids are already legal to some degree, it's just over-prescribing them had a massive backlash and shifting to a completely opposite direction (not that addiction was ever technically a valid reason to get a prescription). > There's simply no reason a grown adult shouldn't be able to smoke a joint Yes, but you still agree we have to draw a line at some point. How do we handle substances that end up being on the other side of it? Do we just ignore them and their distribution not to "curtail civil liberties"? > who do have serious addiction problems and ruins lives, mostly of more vulnerable people, with fines and criminal records and jail time That's awful and should not happen. But is it still that widespread these days? Many(most?) places just seem to ignore addicts and abandon them without providing any real support. > along with nicotine and alcohol What's wrong with nicotine? It's mostly harmless (even if quite addictive) in it's pure form... Anyway if you actually consider even alcohol to be on the other side of that line, I'm not quite sure what you're proposing? If weed and mushrooms are legalized we're still left with 95%+ of all drugs related problems we had before that.

LammyL 3y ago

If it is crime related, then the courts could impose criminal asset forfeiture (aka a fine) after a criminal conviction. Civil asset forfeiture needs to disappear completely and forever.

lnxg33k1 3y ago
It is sometimes not as straightforward, as I think we have that in order to prevent people from having enough funds to escape courts, as in, without money it's harder to flee law. Now some middle class criminals might be affected, some high class criminals might have funds around the world in rogue states and might be able to flee anyway, the issue as usual seem to be of the randomers, always taking the biggest hit of any law done to prevent crime But I think in this case the issue is not the tool to freeze or seize assets in itself, which used pragmatically helps society, is the accountability of those who exploit it I have vibes regarding this like those who said ok there are some shitty cops who shot people, then let’s defund the police
hgsgm 3y ago
They do and that is included in the total, as the article states.

aqme28 3y ago

> However, most of the stuff they seize really is crime-related. I don't really see how that matters. Most people tried for murder are guilty, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have their day in court.

NotYourLawyer 3y ago
It’s relevant to the claim that cops are taking more stuff than burglars. Most of the stuff the cops are taking is crime proceeds!
- lamontcg 3y ago
  So, prove it.
- test098 3y ago
  > Most of the stuff the cops are taking is crime proceeds! you keep saying this but you have no data whatsoever to support this claim.

Finnucane 3y ago

Sure, but penalties for crimes have limits and civil forfeiture doesn't, which raises constitutional issues itself.

RajT88 3y ago

For seizures of sums of cash as little as $100 (mentioned in the article), I very much doubt that to be true. > In practice, however, civil forfeiture is often wielded against regular people who aren’t doing anything wrong. In many states the typical cash forfeiture amount is in the hundreds of dollars — $423 in Michigan, or $369 in Pennsylvania, according to the latest data from the Institute for Justice, a law firm that represents forfeiture victims and tracks the practice nationwide. In many cities police departments have been known to make seizures of less than $100 on the flimsiest pretenses, typically concentrated in the poorest neighborhoods. The usage of 'typical' sounds like they mean 'average', for such precise numbers.

NotYourLawyer 3y ago
I didn’t realize IJ was involved in this, but good for them. They do great work.

phone8675309 3y ago

> However, most of the stuff they seize really is crime-related. Torture might be an effective way to get most criminals to confess and getting a slam dunk conviction when going to trial where a jury may mistakenly exonerate them, but that doesn't mean that it's the _right_ or even _moral_ way to do so. Further, ask yourself this - what is a crime? Answer - it's whatever the legislature says it is, and as a political body they are influenced by what the dominant group in power wants.

test098 3y ago

how are you able to make this claim? "Although there are accessible statistics of seizures at the federal level, it often happens that the totals of forfeitures from both criminals and innocent owners are combined; for example, one report was that in 2010, government seized $2.5 billion in assets from criminals and innocent owners by forfeiture methods,[16] and the totals of assets seized incorrectly from innocent owners was not separated statistically. Further, since the United States is a federal republic with governments at both the national and state level, there are civil forfeiture seizures at the state level, which are not tracked and recorded in any central database,[12] which make it difficult to make assessments, since state laws and procedures vary widely." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States#Prevalence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...

NotYourLawyer 3y ago
There’s just no way that they’re mostly seizing innocent people’s stuff.
- test098 3y ago
  your feelings about the matter isn't actual data though

phyllistine 3y ago

[Citation Needed]