8 ms·
Severely limiting the scope of civil forfeiture seems like one of those political issues that everyone across the political spectrum can agree on. I'm constant
by jkubicek 3y ago
Severely limiting the scope of civil forfeiture seems like one of those political issues that everyone across the political spectrum can agree on.
I'm constantly hearing horror stories like the ones in this article and I've never heard any reasonable defense of our current system. In fact, I've never even heard an unreasonable defense.
- klyrs 3y agoI disagree that everyone across the political spectrum agrees on this: Thin Blue Liners have considerable sway over politics, and they're happily on the take.
- pfannkuchen 3y agoCan you provide a reference where you have seen someone take this stance? I personally have never seen it, and I think I know a lot of pro police types. I think most pro police types would see this as corruption.
- rgrieselhuber 3y agoThe best case response on this issue I’ve seen from TBLiners is apathy.
- yamazakiwi 3y agoI've never met a pro police type that would mention anything as corruption. If you asked them directly some would agree, but as a group I generally just hear apoligism.
- smrq 3y agoHow can it be corruption when it's all because of just "a few bad apples"? (Quoth my thin blue line next door neighbor.) To that world view, nothing wrong is systemic; it's all down to individuals whose behavior is not considered part of the whole. Incidentally, I'm not sure he's familiar with the second half of the idiom ("spoils the whole bunch").
- burkaman 3y agohttps://dailycaller.com/2016/12/30/the-myth-of-policing-for-profit/ https://dailycaller.com/2016/12/30/the-myth-of-policing-for-... 2016 essay by the president of the Fraternal Order of Police arguing against civil forfeiture reform. > The FOP does not disagree that there is a need for civil asset forfeiture reform. In fact, we worked very closely with Senator Jeff Sessions on this issue going back to the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA) of 2000. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sessions-signals-more-police-property-seizures-coming-from-justice-department/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sessions-signals-more-police-pr... Attorney General Jeff Sessions, one of civil forfeiture's biggest fans, reinstates aggressive federal policies. https://www.wsj.com/articles/bernie-madoff-and-the-case-for-civil-asset-forfeiture-1510237360 https://www.wsj.com/articles/bernie-madoff-and-the-case-for-... 2017 essay by then Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein praising civil forfeiture and arguing reform is not necessary. > Some critics claim that civil asset forfeiture fails to protect property rights or provide due process. The truth is that there are multiple levels of judicial protection, as well as administrative safeguards.
- klyrs 3y agoDoes the Society that a majority of Supreme Court Justices belong to count as credible to you? https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/forfeiture-is-reasonable-and-it-works https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/forfeiture-is-rea...
- hedora 3y ago4 of the 5 justices that overturned Roe v. Wade (and ruled there is no right to privacy in the US) were appointed by presidents that lost the popular vote. So, no.
- klyrs 3y agoWhether or not you agree with them; whether or not you agree with the results of the electoral college; I've never heard of a viable dispute to the de jure legitimacy of their appointments. I posted that link in response to an inquiry for a single source in support of civil forfeiture. While I happen to agree with the general thrust of your complaint, it is a non sequitur. The Supreme Court is the ultimate authority, provided a Congress unwilling to hold them accountable (which it currently is). My question of 'credibility' is not "do you like the Federalist Society" but "do you think they're in political alignment with the Thin Blue Liners and are they writing policy."
- hedora 3y agoI don't think the current Supreme Court is a credible source of information about US law. The fact that many of them belong to some organization lends it negative credibility in my mind.
- klyrs 3y agoI mean, they essentially write and rewrite laws that come before them. They're literally an authoritative source of law. We can scream about the injustice of that until we're blue in the face, but denying the facts doesn't get us anywhere.
- lotsofpulp 3y agoThe fact the police unions sell or give out special signifiers for family members of police is proof enough. The fake badgers stuck to windshields in the NYC area is an obvious reminder of the corruption openly allowed by the police. And then you have the license plates and stickers and whatnot.
- wahnfrieden 3y agoBiden was one of the "architects" of modern civil forfeiture: 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... Voting gets us nowhere with limiting state power. Like falling for a good cop bad cop routine. It provides consent for both sides of the aisle abuse like this. edit: I don't know fee.org. Here's a more neutral reference to widely-known facts: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/bidens-crime-prevention-plan-repeats-old-mistakes-policing-2022-08-02/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/bidens-crime-preven... It's easily researchable.
- mikece 3y ago"Voting doesn't help: it only encourages the bastards!" Too much truth in that, sadly.
- ciabattabread 3y agoSo are you advocating for not voting? Exclusively using Tor and ProtonMail? Mass civil disobedience? Overthrow of government? Or becoming a lawyer and filing suit against police departments and other government agencies? Or financially supporting those lawyers?
- wahnfrieden 3y agoVoting is at best a harm reduction tactic. But as I said for limiting state powers specifically, it's usually not even that.
- bashinator 3y agoSo what actual actions do you advocate for ordinary citizens to take?
- membrcovidb 3y ago[dead]
- banannaise 3y agoGenerally speaking, the political argument against is "If you do anything that gives even the appearance of curtailing police powers in any way, we will create the illusion of a crime wave, attribute it to you, and absolutely hammer every form of media with that narrative." (If, God help you, you manage to pass a law that actually curtails police powers, they'll generally act in open defiance instead of doing their jobs.) The opponent here isn't other citizens, it's the police and their organizations (police benevolent associations, police unions, etc.) which wield considerable political power, and to an extent also legal power (since they collectively have nearly full discretion over what laws are enforced and by what means, to the extent they can cooperate amongst themselves).
- DebtDeflation 3y agoIt's not just an empty threat either. It's happened numerous times in NYC when the mayor or city council has attempted to reign in the NYPD, they simply stop responding to calls for service and then blame it on the politicians. Even if it doesn't lead to an uptick in crime, it still angers voters that police won't respond to their calls and they take it out at the polls.
- giraffe_lady 3y agoShit NYPD publicly doxed and threatened the mayor's daughter. I've always known the police were evil but that made me stop and really wonder what sort of constraints municipal politicians are operating under. Like that is very very close to "gloves off" mafia type shit right out in the open. What kinds of threats do they make against those figures in private?
- thechao 3y agoIn case anyone is interested in the power dynamic in Imperial Rome between the Emporers and the Legions, this is is an analogous situation.
- joshuaissac 3y ago
- bwanab 3y agoThat's true. Nobody supports civil forfeiture until the moment a politician realizes there's hay to be made from claiming that they support police efforts to prevent crime.
- kevin_nisbet 3y ago> In fact, I've never even heard an unreasonable defense. I suspect like many things, there was some logic to the introduction. But it's just gotten to really batshit levels that there is probably nothing to do but stop the practice. As I understand it, some of the origins were that for debts owed to the government, with the person not present in the country, it was much more practical to target assets that may exist within the country than try and get the individual. Even in the introduction in the criminal context, I sort of understand the logic. In criminal organizations, there are likely people profiting a lot, that have engineered enough doubt that proving their connection to the beyond a reasonable standard is so difficult. But meeting a preponderance of the evidence standard in the civil context to reclaim those assets I can understand the argument. So I think there are some bad and weak arguments, but they certainly don't outweigh what's happening now. I think one of the worst argument I heard for not returning the money, was the police department wasn't able to follow the judges order, because they deposited the money into a bank account and transferred to another agency. And they'll never be able to find the exact same bills again that they gave to the bank, so are unable to follow the court order to return the money they took to the rightful owner.
- fnordpiglet 3y agoYes the basic premise for why people would support civil forfeiture is “due process let’s too many people ‘get away with it’ so we need an extrajudicial process”. It’s the same basic rationale that all freedoms are ultimately curtailed with - all those rules are inconvenient, let’s by pass them a little bit. Then the reason for the rules start to become readily apparent again. Then the rationale takes on the old “can’t make an omelet” refrain, as if the world revolves around punishing criminals and everyone need to accept the collateral damage. Personally I’m of the old “rather let a thousand guilty go free than punish a single innocent,” but I also don’t set policy.
- westurner 3y agoCivil forfeiture in the United States > History > Holder / Obama: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United... Account for the seized assets. Interledger Protocol works with any type of (digital) asset ledger; W3C ILP. The FTC CAT Consolidated Audit Trail system does not uniquely identify individual bills / [ledger] dollars, either FWIU. But are photons uniquely identifiable either Due process: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process : > Due process developed from clause 39 of Magna Carta in England. Reference to due process first appeared in a statutory rendition of clause 39 in 1354 thus: "No man of what state or condition he be, shall be put out of his lands or tenements nor taken, nor disinherited, nor put to death, without he be brought to answer by due process of law." [3] When English and American law gradually diverged, due process was not upheld in England but became incorporated in the US Constitution. Whether it's possible to disarm and incapacitate without larceny. Criminal Justice Reform > Arguments on criminal justice reform > Support for reform https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_justice_reform_in_the_United_States#Support_for_reform https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_justice_reform_in_the... Save the children. School-to-prison pipeline > Alternative approaches, Mental Health: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School-to-prison_pipeline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School-to-prison_pipeline
- jackmott42 3y agoGet ready, because Scotus is writing such a defense right now.
- rhino369 3y agoThere really isn’t any reasonable defense for these examples or the lack of the speedy hearing. But I’m not against civil forfeiture if practiced better with better safe guards. Every year the government takes 30%+ of the money I make via taxation. Unelected administrative functionaries lay down laws that can massively change the value of your property. I’m not going to cry if the government keeps money whose origin you can’t explain. By law, I have to file tax returns that explains my income. There isn’t a huge difference. These kind of seizures makes organized crime much easier to fight. But again, a lot of these examples look more like straight theft. Also, law enforcement shouldn’t get to keep the money it seizes. It’s a perverse incentive. Should just go into the general treasury.
- ROTMetro 3y agoIf taxes were paid on the money then your example makes zero sense. But yes we must explain everything to the Government. Rights aren't inherent, but are granted to us by the government if we can explain good enough why we need them. Cops should pull me over and ask how I financed my car and if I don't have a good enough answer/documentation on me they should get to take it /s
- patmorgan23 3y agoThere's absolutely no reason to have civil forfeiture when criminal forfeiture exists. If you think money is the product of a crime, seize it, and charge the person with a crime. If you can't prove the crime then the money gets returned.
- throwawaymaths 3y agoIt might be okay if civil forfeiture were allowed as is but with the owner having an absolute entitlement to a jury case and treble damages against the police if they lose. In theory it already is a constitutional right to Levy a civil trial against the police for forfeiture. And any civil trial with dollar value more than 20 is entitled to a jury.