5 ms·

USA, the land of the free!

vincheezel 1y ago
whoever told you that is your enemy
zeroonetwothree 1y ago
As bad as CAF is I wouldn’t say it’s directly impinging on “freedom”. In fact it may be preferable to arresting a person in some cases so that could be said to be an argument in favor.
- b112 1y ago
  Taking your stuff is indeed infringing upon freedom, and money is indeed "stuff". And money is how you pay for food, and housing, so doubly infringing.
- watwut 1y ago
  Wut, it is very directly impinging on freedom.
- chillingeffect 1y ago
  Congratulatulions, you're in the running for Apology of the Year.
- Jtsummers 1y ago
  It may be preferable to lose your property in exchange for not getting arrested, but that's like saying I'd rather get pickpocketed than beaten and robbed. Most people would rather their legal property remain their legal property.
  - esbranson 1y ago
    Obviously. Hence the purpose of civil forfeiture, to discourage violations of the law. Civil forfeiture is a potential consequence of doing pickpocketing, beatings, and robbery, to keep to your example. Criminal fines are meant for after all the illicit money has been seized, they're meant to come out of their McDonalds paycheck not their robbery proceeds. Otherwise fines are useless against criminals who profit from their crimes.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - Jtsummers 1y ago
      > Obviously. Hence the purpose of civil forfeiture, to discourage violations of the law. Civil forfeiture is a potential consequence of doing pickpocketing, beatings, and robbery, to keep to your example. Criminal fines are meant for after all the illicit money has been seized, they're meant to come out of their McDonalds paycheck not their robbery proceeds. Otherwise fines are useless against criminals who profit from their crimes. Are you really conflating civil asset forfeiture, where no person is convicted of a crime but their property is seized and not returned, with criminal fines which are imposed after a conviction? Are you ignorant or a troll? This isn't an either/or situation of course. You could also be an ignorant troll.
      - esbranson 1y ago
        > Are you ignorant or a troll? … You could also be an ignorant troll. I'm a significant Wikipedian, so maybe. > Are you really conflating civil asset forfeiture, where no person is convicted of a crime but their property is seized and not returned, with criminal fines which are imposed after a conviction? No. They are independent and serve different purposes. Criminal fines are meant to be taken against legally possessed assets. When someone steals $10 million dollars, the $10 million dollars is seized via civil asset forfeiture. Hence when National Propaganda Radio reports some white collar criminal was fined $10,000 dollars for stealing $10 million dollars, what they're not telling you is that the $10 million dollars is going to be seized via a civil judicial process, regardless of any criminal judicial process. Otherwise it's easy to be confused when white collar criminals almost always get fines less than they stole. All criminals would have to do is steal more than the maximum fine, and NPR happily lets massive amounts of leftists think so.
- tobyhinloopen 1y ago
  As long as it doesn’t happen to you, am I right? Surely theft by government without trial only happens to those that deserve it
esbranson 1y ago
It's a holdover from Europe, which means most countries in the world have a form of it. Mexico, that socialist, gun-control utopia, is probably the best example. If another country besides the US ever gets something like PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) from the 1980s, they would have a clue. Ignorance is bliss, but the US is probably still better.
- marcosdumay 1y ago
  Are you trying to say that most countries have something similar to civil asset forfeiture? If so, that's absolutely wrong.
  - esbranson 1y ago
    Yes that's my claim, as defined in Mexican law since that's more like most countries' legal systems. I don't know so my claim is weak, my Wikipedia articles on non-US legal systems is extremely slow going, and I have not written articles on this particular topic outside the US. :( The real basis of my claim is that most of the world would be expected to have judicial procedures for seizing assets more akin to our CAF. What the US considers reduced rights, like no jury trial, is just how things are elsewhere. (Ain't no one with a right to a jury trial anywhere in the world ever gonna choose a bench trial, it's that much of a difference.)
    - marcosdumay 1y ago
      The most prominent feature of the US asset forfeiture isn't that it's ruled by bench trial.
      - esbranson 1y ago
        Is it the standard of proof? Preponderance (US), Balance of Probabilities (CA, UK, Ireland, SG, AU, NZ, PH, SA, NG), extinción de dominio (MX, CO, BR)?
        1y ago

whoever told you that is your enemy

As bad as CAF is I wouldn’t say it’s directly impinging on “freedom”. In fact it may be preferable to arresting a person in some cases so that could be said to be an argument in favor.

b112 1y ago
Taking your stuff is indeed infringing upon freedom, and money is indeed "stuff". And money is how you pay for food, and housing, so doubly infringing.
watwut 1y ago
Wut, it is very directly impinging on freedom.
chillingeffect 1y ago
Congratulatulions, you're in the running for Apology of the Year.
Jtsummers 1y ago
It may be preferable to lose your property in exchange for not getting arrested, but that's like saying I'd rather get pickpocketed than beaten and robbed. Most people would rather their legal property remain their legal property.
- esbranson 1y ago
  Obviously. Hence the purpose of civil forfeiture, to discourage violations of the law. Civil forfeiture is a potential consequence of doing pickpocketing, beatings, and robbery, to keep to your example. Criminal fines are meant for after all the illicit money has been seized, they're meant to come out of their McDonalds paycheck not their robbery proceeds. Otherwise fines are useless against criminals who profit from their crimes.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - Jtsummers 1y ago
    > Obviously. Hence the purpose of civil forfeiture, to discourage violations of the law. Civil forfeiture is a potential consequence of doing pickpocketing, beatings, and robbery, to keep to your example. Criminal fines are meant for after all the illicit money has been seized, they're meant to come out of their McDonalds paycheck not their robbery proceeds. Otherwise fines are useless against criminals who profit from their crimes. Are you really conflating civil asset forfeiture, where no person is convicted of a crime but their property is seized and not returned, with criminal fines which are imposed after a conviction? Are you ignorant or a troll? This isn't an either/or situation of course. You could also be an ignorant troll.
    - esbranson 1y ago
      > Are you ignorant or a troll? … You could also be an ignorant troll. I'm a significant Wikipedian, so maybe. > Are you really conflating civil asset forfeiture, where no person is convicted of a crime but their property is seized and not returned, with criminal fines which are imposed after a conviction? No. They are independent and serve different purposes. Criminal fines are meant to be taken against legally possessed assets. When someone steals $10 million dollars, the $10 million dollars is seized via civil asset forfeiture. Hence when National Propaganda Radio reports some white collar criminal was fined $10,000 dollars for stealing $10 million dollars, what they're not telling you is that the $10 million dollars is going to be seized via a civil judicial process, regardless of any criminal judicial process. Otherwise it's easy to be confused when white collar criminals almost always get fines less than they stole. All criminals would have to do is steal more than the maximum fine, and NPR happily lets massive amounts of leftists think so.
tobyhinloopen 1y ago
As long as it doesn’t happen to you, am I right? Surely theft by government without trial only happens to those that deserve it

esbranson 1y ago

It's a holdover from Europe, which means most countries in the world have a form of it. Mexico, that socialist, gun-control utopia, is probably the best example. If another country besides the US ever gets something like PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) from the 1980s, they would have a clue. Ignorance is bliss, but the US is probably still better.

marcosdumay 1y ago
Are you trying to say that most countries have something similar to civil asset forfeiture? If so, that's absolutely wrong.
- esbranson 1y ago
  Yes that's my claim, as defined in Mexican law since that's more like most countries' legal systems. I don't know so my claim is weak, my Wikipedia articles on non-US legal systems is extremely slow going, and I have not written articles on this particular topic outside the US. :( The real basis of my claim is that most of the world would be expected to have judicial procedures for seizing assets more akin to our CAF. What the US considers reduced rights, like no jury trial, is just how things are elsewhere. (Ain't no one with a right to a jury trial anywhere in the world ever gonna choose a bench trial, it's that much of a difference.)
  - marcosdumay 1y ago
    The most prominent feature of the US asset forfeiture isn't that it's ruled by bench trial.
    - esbranson 1y ago
      Is it the standard of proof? Preponderance (US), Balance of Probabilities (CA, UK, Ireland, SG, AU, NZ, PH, SA, NG), extinción de dominio (MX, CO, BR)?
      - 1y ago