4 ms·

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

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.
    - Jtsummers 1y ago
      > National Propaganda Radio Anyone who writes things like that reveals that they are, in fact, just an ignorant troll. Thanks for confirming, I'll try to remember to ignore your comments in the future.
      - esbranson 1y ago
        Well I guess that means you're not a Hoax News habitue. But you might as well add Wikipedia government and law articles to your ignore list. (In my defense, I wrote a lot of them a long time ago.)
    - Sohcahtoa82 1y ago
      Okay, and what if I pull out $10,000 cash from my bank, hop on a flight somewhere to buy a car from someone a few states over with the plan of driving my newly-purchased car home, but the TSA accuses the cash of being drug money and turns it over to the police?
      - 1y ago

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.
  - Jtsummers 1y ago
    > National Propaganda Radio Anyone who writes things like that reveals that they are, in fact, just an ignorant troll. Thanks for confirming, I'll try to remember to ignore your comments in the future.
    - esbranson 1y ago
      Well I guess that means you're not a Hoax News habitue. But you might as well add Wikipedia government and law articles to your ignore list. (In my defense, I wrote a lot of them a long time ago.)
  - Sohcahtoa82 1y ago
    Okay, and what if I pull out $10,000 cash from my bank, hop on a flight somewhere to buy a car from someone a few states over with the plan of driving my newly-purchased car home, but the TSA accuses the cash of being drug money and turns it over to the police?
    - 1y ago