• 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!

Civil Asset Forfeiture

Should civil assed forfeiture be allowed?

  • yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • yes but increase restrictions

    Votes: 2 7.7%
  • no

    Votes: 24 92.3%
  • other

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    26

Masterhawk

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2016
Messages
1,908
Reaction score
489
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Civil asset forfeiture is when law enforcement seizes property from individuals suspected of committing a crime without necessarily charging them. This practice has been used, particularly in the war on drugs. In theory, it is used to seize assets which are used to commit a crime (such as stuff used to make illegal drugs or guns). Supporters, particularly police officers, say that it enhances cooperation between law enforcement agencies and deters crime. However, opponents point out that innocent people can be subject to this crime and that it's based on the idea of "guilty until proven innocent". Furthermore, one of the three main justifications for civil asset forfeiture, according to the DOJ, is to make revenue and opponents say that the practice has been abused for this very reason.
 
Civil asset forfeiture is when law enforcement seizes property from individuals suspected of committing a crime without necessarily charging them. This practice has been used, particularly in the war on drugs. In theory, it is used to seize assets which are used to commit a crime (such as stuff used to make illegal drugs or guns). Supporters, particularly police officers, say that it enhances cooperation between law enforcement agencies and deters crime. However, opponents point out that innocent people can be subject to this crime and that it's based on the idea of "guilty until proven innocent". Furthermore, one of the three main justifications for civil asset forfeiture, according to the DOJ, is to make revenue and opponents say that the practice has been abused for this very reason.

The practice is abused by its existing at all.
 
I honestly don't know enough to have an informed opinion on all aspects. But I do know of cases where people had their assets confiscated long enough to put them into bankruptcy, and then when it turns out they were guilty of nothing, their property is returned with an oops, sorry, but there is no restitution for ruining the person financially. There should be some recourse for that kind of thing.
 
It amounts to legalized theft with little or no oversight. Numerous examples of it being abused by authorities, exist.

It sure does drive home how little we care about justice....that we have done it...that we have done so much of it....and that so few have enough sense to care.
 
It sure does drive home how little we care about justice....that we have done it...that we have done so much of it....and that so few have enough sense to care.

Being deprived of property or assets without due process is tyranny. That part of the constitution about unreasonable search and seizure, springs to mind.
 
Being deprived of property or assets without due process is tyranny. That part of the constitution about unreasonable search and seizure, springs to mind.

And if SCOTUS will not stand up for us and the Constitution and justice as well on such an obvious point then what good are they.....


I hope that this evening finds you well Sir....
 
Only courts after convictions should be allowed to seize property. To allow police forces to do this fosters corruption and illegitimate theft from honest citizens by thugs in uniforms.
 
Only courts after convictions should be allowed to seize property. To allow police forces to do this fosters corruption and illegitimate theft from honest citizens by thugs in uniforms.

And let us not have our cops be considered revenue generators for the government through ticketing either.

Whether they are given quota's or not.
 
And let us not have our cops be considered revenue generators for the government though ticketing either.

Whether they are given quota's or not.

True, especially if they do it through arresting people and jailing them so that local government can shore up their tax shortfall over the backs of poor people (one way or another) because that is a whole different issue compared to civil forfeiture which is going after property of innocent people, the other kind of revenue gathering is just as deceitful and dishonest. The thing with this kind of revenue gathering is that it gives people criminal records and jails them on top of taking their money.
 
True, especially if they do it through arresting people and jailing them so that local government can shore up their tax shortfall over the backs of poor people (one way or another) because that is a whole different issue compared to civil forfeiture which is going after property of innocent people, the other kind of revenue gathering is just as deceitful and dishonest. The thing with this kind of revenue gathering is that it gives people criminal records and jails them on top of taking their money.

The main thing is that this causes the Little People to rightly despise their government.


Hitch
The essence of tyranny is not iron law. It is capricious law

Understanding that the law is not just the words, that it is also about what is actually done....maybe the cops will take your stuff, maybe they wont, maybe you can talk them out out taking your stuff, maybe you can bribe them to not take your stuff.....

Such a colossally bad idea yet our government had it, and SCOTUS said "That is just FINE AND DANDY WITH US!".







SAD
 
Last edited:
The main thing is that this causes the Little People to rightly despise their government.


Hitch


Understanding that the law is not just the words, that it is also about what is actually done....maybe the cops will take your stuff, maybe they wont, maybe you can talk them out out taking your stuff, maybe you can bribe them to not take your stuff.....

Such a colossally bad idea yet our government had it, and SCOTUS said "That is just FINE AND DANDY WITH US!".







SAD

Well, that is also an issue with not wanting to let go of words written centuries ago that were for their times brilliant and impressive, they were wise and just at the times that the US was 13 states and approximately 2.5 million Americans.

Other countries were smart enough to change, not just amend their original constitutions and from time to time (sometimes decades, sometimes centuries) until a totally new constitution was enacted.

Our constitution started in 1814 and new constitutions where written in 1815, 1840 and 1848 based on changes in society important enough to change the constitution. For example when Belgium from our combined nation (mostly to do with religion) and when our King relinquished most of his power to benefit the power of the people and our versions of congress and the senate.

After which several changes were made if and when needed.

In 1887 to change the voting rights laws

in 1917 to legalize voting rights for women and other small changes to our voting rights laws, proportional representation was enacted and special education (education based on religious or political basis) where made equal to public schools, both got the same amount of founding in similar situations

In 1922, the constitution was changed to enact the right of women to get elected. Ended the phrase colonies from our constitution. The possibility of objecting to military service on religious/pacifistic grounds was allowed. And declarations of war were only permissible by act of congress (our version).

In 1938, some minor governmental rules where changed as well as the way government interacted with the private sector in more constructive ways.

In 1946 and 1948 the changes had to do with the end of having colonies, as well as having a new constitution that regulated how the country of the Netherlands had to work with the other countries in the Kingdom.

Then there were several other more procedural changes in 1953, 56, 63 and 1972.

In 1971 our politicians realized that the amended constitution was not fit for purpose anymore, with the large number of changes to the world and how humans felt about what rights should be adopted for them, the government decided to start discussion with politicians and legal experts into what the new constitution should encompass with regard to more civil liberties and the coming 21st century and everything in between. The negotiations and writing of the new constitution took from 1974 to 1983 (several times the law was analyzed and help up to scrutiny by legal and constitutional experts before in 1983 there was a complete revision of the constitution.

Since then new things were added or taken from that constitution.

The way the constitution is changed is very onerous, to make sure the constitution is not changed on a whim. And it needs a new parliament to approve the changes the old parliament has written down and the new parliament has to vote for that new constitutional change with a two third majority or there will be no constitutional change. This means that only things that most parties/people agree with get changed in the constitution.

But this makes the constitution a living document that does not need a Supreme Court that explains the public and politicians how something should be read.

But I do agree that making a new constitution in the United States would be very very very difficult, especially in the highly partisan way the US is governed. But maybe it would not be a bad thing to start to discuss things people can agree to with regards to things in the constitution that could be clarified and codified so that the Supreme Court can takes it's lead from how people now want laws to be read rather than imagining how the founding fathers would have decided on something (you know, guesswork ;) or one could say interpret what the constitution says).
 
Civil asset forfeiture is when law enforcement seizes property from individuals suspected of committing a crime without necessarily charging them. This practice has been used, particularly in the war on drugs. In theory, it is used to seize assets which are used to commit a crime (such as stuff used to make illegal drugs or guns). Supporters, particularly police officers, say that it enhances cooperation between law enforcement agencies and deters crime. However, opponents point out that innocent people can be subject to this crime and that it's based on the idea of "guilty until proven innocent". Furthermore, one of the three main justifications for civil asset forfeiture, according to the DOJ, is to make revenue and opponents say that the practice has been abused for this very reason.

No it should not be allowed in regard to criminal cases.If it is suspected that the money or other property was obtained or used for a criminal act then property owner should be charged and tried in a criminal court of law.In civil forfeiture cases the cash and or items are charged,thus making the owner having to prove innocence in a civil court instead of law enforcement having to prove guilt in a criminal court. In civil court the standards of proving guilt are much lower than the standards of proving guilt in a criminal court.
 
Civil asset forfeiture is when law enforcement seizes property from individuals suspected of committing a crime without necessarily charging them. This practice has been used, particularly in the war on drugs. In theory, it is used to seize assets which are used to commit a crime (such as stuff used to make illegal drugs or guns). Supporters, particularly police officers, say that it enhances cooperation between law enforcement agencies and deters crime. However, opponents point out that innocent people can be subject to this crime and that it's based on the idea of "guilty until proven innocent". Furthermore, one of the three main justifications for civil asset forfeiture, according to the DOJ, is to make revenue and opponents say that the practice has been abused for this very reason.

Assets should only be seized after a lawful conviction.
 
Well, that is also an issue with not wanting to let go of words written centuries ago that were for their times brilliant and impressive, they were wise and just at the times that the US was 13 states and approximately 2.5 million Americans.

Other countries were smart enough to change, not just amend their original constitutions and from time to time (sometimes decades, sometimes centuries) until a totally new constitution was enacted.

Our constitution started in 1814 and new constitutions where written in 1815, 1840 and 1848 based on changes in society important enough to change the constitution. For example when Belgium from our combined nation (mostly to do with religion) and when our King relinquished most of his power to benefit the power of the people and our versions of congress and the senate.

After which several changes were made if and when needed.

In 1887 to change the voting rights laws

in 1917 to legalize voting rights for women and other small changes to our voting rights laws, proportional representation was enacted and special education (education based on religious or political basis) where made equal to public schools, both got the same amount of founding in similar situations

In 1922, the constitution was changed to enact the right of women to get elected. Ended the phrase colonies from our constitution. The possibility of objecting to military service on religious/pacifistic grounds was allowed. And declarations of war were only permissible by act of congress (our version).

In 1938, some minor governmental rules where changed as well as the way government interacted with the private sector in more constructive ways.

In 1946 and 1948 the changes had to do with the end of having colonies, as well as having a new constitution that regulated how the country of the Netherlands had to work with the other countries in the Kingdom.

Then there were several other more procedural changes in 1953, 56, 63 and 1972.

In 1971 our politicians realized that the amended constitution was not fit for purpose anymore, with the large number of changes to the world and how humans felt about what rights should be adopted for them, the government decided to start discussion with politicians and legal experts into what the new constitution should encompass with regard to more civil liberties and the coming 21st century and everything in between. The negotiations and writing of the new constitution took from 1974 to 1983 (several times the law was analyzed and help up to scrutiny by legal and constitutional experts before in 1983 there was a complete revision of the constitution.

Since then new things were added or taken from that constitution.

The way the constitution is changed is very onerous, to make sure the constitution is not changed on a whim. And it needs a new parliament to approve the changes the old parliament has written down and the new parliament has to vote for that new constitutional change with a two third majority or there will be no constitutional change. This means that only things that most parties/people agree with get changed in the constitution.

But this makes the constitution a living document that does not need a Supreme Court that explains the public and politicians how something should be read.

But I do agree that making a new constitution in the United States would be very very very difficult, especially in the highly partisan way the US is governed. But maybe it would not be a bad thing to start to discuss things people can agree to with regards to things in the constitution that could be clarified and codified so that the Supreme Court can takes it's lead from how people now want laws to be read rather than imagining how the founding fathers would have decided on something (you know, guesswork ;) or one could say interpret what the constitution says).

The Constitution of my country was changed 10 times in 1791, then in 1795, 1804, 1865, 1868, 1870, 1913 twice, 1919, 1920, 1933 twice, 1951, 1961, 1964, 1967, 1971 and most recently 1992. Also, sometime the interpretation changes. Further, 4 of my countries areas are larger in population than your country and they each have their own Constitutions.
 
The Constitution of my country was changed 10 times in 1791, then in 1795, 1804, 1865, 1868, 1870, 1913 twice, 1919, 1920, 1933 twice, 1951, 1961, 1964, 1967, 1971 and most recently 1992. Also, sometime the interpretation changes. Further, 4 of my countries areas are larger in population than your country and they each have their own Constitutions.

Yes, but the core of the constitution as to elections is still based mostly on that from when there way way way way way fewer citizens in the United States.

And still not the same thing as totally updating the thing with a new and improved constitution fit for this day and age (including the internet, modern day travel, etc. etc. etc.)

At least that is my opinion that sometimes the changes in a society are that huge that just updating the old document is no longer enough. But for me it is easy to say such a thing because:

a. I am Dutch and live in the Netherlands where the animosity in the public realm is not that huge as in the United States
b. Dutch people are not that bothered with changing the document that we call the first constitution because it was hardly the founding document of my country, that was written many centuries earlier
c. we are a constitutional monarchy, which is a lot different than a republic

All I wanted to say is sometimes it is good to start over so that new feelings and new knowledge can easily be added to a constitution, especially with regard to how international and tech centered the world has become. But again, just a suggestion, in no may meant as in:

THOU SHALT!!!!;)
 
Last edited:
Yes, but the core of the constitution as to elections is still based mostly on that from when there way way way way way fewer citizens in the United States.

And still not the same thing as totally updating the thing with a new and improved constitution fit for this day and age (including the internet, modern day travel, etc. etc. etc.)

And yet somehow we have all those things and survived all this time without a monarchy. This is an example where not every interpretation is correct, but funny thing is, those old words help say that the decision for civil asset forfeiture isn't correct.
 
And yet somehow we have all those things and survived all this time without a monarchy. This is an example where not every interpretation is correct, but funny thing is, those old words help say that the decision for civil asset forfeiture isn't correct.

Well, a constitutional monarchy only works if the king is popular and has little to no power, there is no need to have a monarchy it is just nice to have one. One more office that does not need an election LOL.

Civil forfeiture is semi legal theft of people who have not been found guilty or even accused of a crime.
 
Only courts after convictions should be allowed to seize property. To allow police forces to do this fosters corruption and illegitimate theft from honest citizens by thugs in uniforms.

I don't think that should even happen unless the seizing of the property is in line with the punishment fine AND the defendant found guilty was the sole owner of said property. A person should not have their house seized if a fine was say $5,000. Now if the fine was say $500,000 and the property was worth $350,000 then that would be in line with the fine and the government should be able to seize the house if the house was solely under the defendant's name.
 
I don't think that should even happen unless the seizing of the property is in line with the punishment fine AND the defendant found guilty was the sole owner of said property. A person should not have their house seized if a fine was say $5,000. Now if the fine was say $500,000 and the property was worth $350,000 then that would be in line with the fine and the government should be able to seize the house if the house was solely under the defendant's name.

I disagree, sole property should not be the issue as long as it is property bought with criminal money, proceeds of crime that bought houses/cars/expensive trinkets/etc. etc. etc. that it is family property of property of wife/kids should not be taken into consideration up to a point IMHO.
 
Civil asset forfeiture is when law enforcement seizes property from individuals suspected of committing a crime without necessarily charging them. This practice has been used, particularly in the war on drugs. In theory, it is used to seize assets which are used to commit a crime (such as stuff used to make illegal drugs or guns). Supporters, particularly police officers, say that it enhances cooperation between law enforcement agencies and deters crime. However, opponents point out that innocent people can be subject to this crime and that it's based on the idea of "guilty until proven innocent". Furthermore, one of the three main justifications for civil asset forfeiture, according to the DOJ, is to make revenue and opponents say that the practice has been abused for this very reason.

I don't know if there is legitimate concern to allow it or not. But the system is far more than abused, and because it's primary resultant is abuse, it should be done away with. One has to be very very careful with any power the government has to take property, there is far too much potential for abuse.
 
Back
Top Bottom