4 ms·

This already happens sometimes. The local PD will seize money, 'transfer' it to the the state or federal government, and then claim "Well, we can't give you the

This already happens sometimes. The local PD will seize money, 'transfer' it to the the state or federal government, and then claim "Well, we can't give you the money back, we don't have it anymore. You'll have to sue the other guys instead." And of course frequently in such situations the state or the feds will say that you have no standing to sue them, since they didn't take your money, so you have to sue the PD. Enjoy being pulled over every other week by your local PD because you _dared_ to even challenge them legally. It doesn't really matter where the assets end up. The perverse incentive is that the assets can be trivially seized with no consequences at very little cost to the power structures doing the seizing. What is the incentive for a person or group to stop stealing when there is no possibility for any negative consequences to them? Morals, ethics? There are plenty of people in positions of power who would get a kick out of causing someone else pain and suffering because they're bored.

actionfromafar 3y ago
TIs the decision of where to send the money made on a per-case basis by the local PD? If so, that sounds like just one more option to seize for profit or harass if the case is too weak. I still think if the only option is to transfer, the general incentive structure is improved. Stealing with profit motive plus harassment is worse than stealing just for harassment. I also think in general, to effect change, to campaign for a single thing, easily explained, is the most successful approach.
- genocidicbunny 3y ago
  > I also think in general, to effect change, to campaign for a single thing, easily explained, is the most successful approach. What part of 'You can't take people's stuff without first proving it should be taken, in a court of law' is hard to comprehend? There's no need to over-complicate the argument that this is blatant state-sanctioned robbery and deprivation of property without due process.
patmorgan23 3y ago
The funds usually go into a slush fund that benefits the PD while not being under its direct control. Removing the financial incentive for law enforcement to abuse CAF would be an improvement. You'd need to ban any bonus to individual officers for CAF, and make sure 0 funds make their way bank to the PD (i.e. no budget increases for CAF activities). But I think it would a better idea and more effective to eliminate Civil Asset forfeiture and only allow Criminal asset forfeiture. If you think the funds are illegal, charge someone and prove it.

actionfromafar 3y ago

TIs the decision of where to send the money made on a per-case basis by the local PD? If so, that sounds like just one more option to seize for profit or harass if the case is too weak. I still think if the only option is to transfer, the general incentive structure is improved. Stealing with profit motive plus harassment is worse than stealing just for harassment. I also think in general, to effect change, to campaign for a single thing, easily explained, is the most successful approach.

genocidicbunny 3y ago
> I also think in general, to effect change, to campaign for a single thing, easily explained, is the most successful approach. What part of 'You can't take people's stuff without first proving it should be taken, in a court of law' is hard to comprehend? There's no need to over-complicate the argument that this is blatant state-sanctioned robbery and deprivation of property without due process.

patmorgan23 3y ago

The funds usually go into a slush fund that benefits the PD while not being under its direct control. Removing the financial incentive for law enforcement to abuse CAF would be an improvement. You'd need to ban any bonus to individual officers for CAF, and make sure 0 funds make their way bank to the PD (i.e. no budget increases for CAF activities). But I think it would a better idea and more effective to eliminate Civil Asset forfeiture and only allow Criminal asset forfeiture. If you think the funds are illegal, charge someone and prove it.