• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Arizona’s Rigged Civil Forfeiture System

radcen

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Civil (asset) forfeiture pisses me off to no end.
 
radcen said:
People need to pay attention to the world around them. This is not new, yet woefully few people know about it.
Click to expand...

Its a shame the media doesn't highlight this issue in the news and TV shows. Its because of the fact most people do not know what civil forfeiture even exist or what the difference between civil and criminal courts why this legalized theft is allowed.
 
jamesrage said:
Its a shame the media doesn't highlight this issue in the news and TV shows. Its because of the fact most people do not know what civil forfeiture even exist or what the difference between civil and criminal courts why this legalized theft is allowed.
Click to expand...

John Oliver did a piece on it.



 
The War on Drugs is a misnomer; it is more accurately a war waged by the U.S. government against American citizens, and it needs to be seen in those terms.

It shreds the Constitution, and is probably the thing I most hate about America. I truly love this country, greatly admire the Constitution, and America indeed rescued my family on both sides in previous generations (while saving the world!). But there are some things it does, that it's fair to say I hate - and the WoD, with all that is attendant with it, is one of them.
 
radcen said:
People need to pay attention to the world around them. This is not new, yet woefully few people know about it.
Click to expand...

Good luck to them, but the government loves to steal.
 
TheGoverness said:
I can't believe this practice is still allowed.
Click to expand...

It's Republocrat behavior, of course it's still allowed. Their power is unchallenged, they can do as they want. Even as we sit here and talk about how absurd and out of control the system is, it won't change. This is the face of uncontrolled government.
 
azgreg said:
Civil (asset) forfeiture pisses me off to no end.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with civil forfeiture, I have a problem when it used used like the article in the OP.

I don't have a problem when they catch some guy after a drug deal and he's got a couple hundred thousand and no way to show where it came from.
 
On one hand it's terrible, on the other hand I'm absolutely flabbergasted that there are still people who haven't heard of it. The American populace is asleep at the wheel.
 
radcen said:
People need to pay attention to the world around them. This is not new, yet woefully few people know about it.
Click to expand...

Asset forfeiture has been the law of the land for many years now, and no one seems to have challenged the constitutionality of it.

Seems to me it's a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment, but that's just me. I suppose as long as money is to be made from it, it will continue.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Asset forfeiture has been the law of the land for many years now, and no one seems to have challenged the constitutionality of it.

Seems to me it's a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment, but that's just me. I suppose as long as money is to be made from it, it will continue.
Click to expand...

There have been a number of asset forfeiture cases before the supreme court.

Supreme Court Ruling On Civil Forfeiture - Business Insider

Under federal and state laws known as civil forfeiture, police can seize cash or property if they suspect it's tied to an illegal activity even if the property owner isn't charged with a crime. On its face, this practice seems like an obvious violation of the Fifth Amendment's stipulation that you can't "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

The Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. That court has issued a number of rulings upholding civil forfeiture, including one in 1996 that said seizure of an innocent person's property didn't violate due process. In that case, a Michigan woman named Tina Bennis fought the seizure of her car after her husband was caught having sex with a prostitute in it.
Click to expand...
 
Dittohead not! said:
So, the Supreme Court has upheld a blatant violation of the Constitution. May as well redact the Fifth Amendment. Every one of the Bill of Rights needs an organization behind it the way the NRA is behind the Second.
Click to expand...
As I understand it, they get around the Constitution like this...

The items (money, possessions, etc.) have no rights, so they are accused. The people themselves are not accused. Hence, no Constitutional violations.

IMO, that's about as slimy as one can get.
 
radcen said:
As I understand it, they get around the Constitution like this...

The items (money, possessions, etc.) have no rights, so they are accused. The people themselves are not accused. Hence, no Constitutional violations.

IMO, that's about as slimy as one can get.
Click to expand...

From the article I linked above.

While it sounds odd that the government would want to punish "the thing," civil forfeiture cases today still reflect that line of reasoning. When the government attempts to seize property these days, it files a civil complaint against the property or cash. This leads to funny-sounding lawsuits, like "US v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins." But for people whose property or cash is seized, forfeiture can be seriously disruptive.
Click to expand...
 
radcen said:
As I understand it, they get around the Constitution like this...

The items (money, possessions, etc.) have no rights, so they are accused. The people themselves are not accused. Hence, no Constitutional violations.

IMO, that's about as slimy as one can get.
Click to expand...

In a government known for slimy actions, that's got to be one of the slimiest. ...shall not be deprived of life, liberty, or property... seems pretty clear to me. Then they argue that the property is the accused, and the people of this supposed government of the people just let it happen.

Sad.
 
reinoe said:
On one hand it's terrible, on the other hand I'm absolutely flabbergasted that there are still people who haven't heard of it. The American populace is asleep at the wheel.
Click to expand...

Yes, we are. It's how we've gotten into the mess we are in now. You don't go down this hole by paying attention and actively participating in the system.
 
Dittohead not! said:
In a government known for slimy actions, that's got to be one of the slimiest. ...shall not be deprived of life, liberty, or property... seems pretty clear to me. Then they argue that the property is the accused, and the people of this supposed government of the people just let it happen.

Sad.
Click to expand...
Completely agree. Ok, sure, it's stuff and not me, but it's MY stuff. I honestly don't see how any alleged self-respecting believer in the Constitution can get around that.
 
Ikari said:
It's Republocrat behavior, of course it's still allowed. Their power is unchallenged, they can do as they want. Even as we sit here and talk about how absurd and out of control the system is, it won't change. This is the face of uncontrolled government.
Click to expand...

And it's things like civil forfeiture that has made so many so pissed off that we are willing to take a chance on a Trump rather than accept more of the status quo.

Regardless of the SC rulings, which in the near past have become more about politics and less about the Constitution, Civil Forfeiture violates several parts of the Constitution. Unreasonable search and seizure, self incrimination, and presumed innocence for starters.
 
Dittohead not! said:
In a government known for slimy actions, that's got to be one of the slimiest. ...shall not be deprived of life, liberty, or property... seems pretty clear to me. Then they argue that the property is the accused, and the people of this supposed government of the people just let it happen.

Sad.
Click to expand...
Thinking about this more, there's a lot in the Constitution that is open for interpretation, but the part I highlight in red seems blindingly obvious to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom