View Poll Results: Should Civil Forfeiture Exist?

Voters
68. You may not vote on this poll
  • No

    59 86.76%
  • Yes

    9 13.24%
Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 154

Thread: Should Civil Forfeiture Exist?

  1. #11
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:27 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    39,905

    Re: Should Civil Forfeiture Exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Carjosse View Post
    A few days ago jamesrage posted this thread (Mississippi Bill Would Let Cops Forfeit Cash And Cars - Without The Owner Going To Court) about how Mississippi wants to make it easier for police officers to take cash and vehicles through civil forfeiture.

    Do you think civil forfeiture should exist? Is it a violation of constitutional rights? If you support it, why?

    I see it only as legalized theft by police, there is no reason why police should be able to take property without having to prove it first or charge someone of a crime.
    To me civil foreiture is a violation of the constitution.
    if any government agent wants to take my stuff they should first have to prove it in a court of law.

    me walking down the street with 10k or 20k dollars in my pocket is 100% legal and constitutional and none
    of the government business as to why i have it.

    also even if the government seizes my items they are 100% responsible for returning every bit of it back too me if i am cleared of any and all charges.
    why courts let them get away with is gross blatant unconstitutional theft is beyond me.

  2. #12
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:27 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    39,905

    Re: Should Civil Forfeiture Exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by MrWonka View Post
    The only reason people support this kind of **** is that of white privilege. They're confident that their status in society will make them immune from it, and they trust the police to only use it to hurt people who truly deserve it. They're the same **** heads who support the militarization of police and say blue lives matter. They're confident that the average police officer is as white and as racist as they are so it's only the undesirables that will feel the brunt of police mistreatment.

    The only branch of law enforcement these **** heads don't like is the FBI because it's the only one that's coming after them.
    stop with the race card bull****.

    civil forfeiture affects everyone know matter what skin color they are.
    only a liberal can turn play the race card and devalue an actual argument into something so base
    and stupid.

  3. #13
    Respected on both sides

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    50,545

    Re: Should Civil Forfeiture Exist?

    An entertaining dummy's guide to asset forfeiture...


  4. #14
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,536

    Re: Should Civil Forfeiture Exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by DH Kirkwood View Post
    So, you're fine with people's houses taken away just because there's drugs in there, something that shouldn't even be illegal in the first place.
    Drugs are a bad example for me because I don't agree with the war on drugs, so let's take drugs out of the picture. Instead let's say a rape or killing was in the house, that's an example I think we can agree on legality that the crime is legitimately illegal, yes?


    I'm sorry, but I may be misinterpreting the spirit of your post, but it sounds a whole lot like, 'well, they're criminals, so **** 'em, go ahead and take their **** on top of locking them up!'
    Don't do the crime if someone is concerned with losing their property.

    We live in a country with one of the highest, if not the highest rates of incarceration, fueled by for-profit-prisons and an injust drug war that boils down to basically being a war on the lower classes. I am absolutely not fine with seizing the property of convicts. Book 'em, sentence, make them serve out their time, but do not exploit them.
    As I said before, the drug war is a poor example because I agree with you that drugs should not be illegal. However, the fact it affects lower classes more can be attributed to lower classes wanting "fast cash" as well as disproportionate legal representation. The first (fast cash) I don't think should be used as an excuse to defend their actions, the second (not the same legal representation) I agree is disproportionate among lower class.

    Minus the drug war, I just can't see someone committing a felony and not having some punishment of forfeiture of property not applied. Again, you make interesting points and I'm not against everything you said, I just need to think more on the subject I guess.
    Quote Originally Posted by Praxas
    Yes, we know that you don't care Trump bragged about walking in on underage girls naked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    And that bothers you because????????
    -In 2017, conservatives said they were concerned about women being assaulted in bathrooms. In 2018 conservatives showed women they wouldn’t believe them if they were.

  5. #15
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,536

    Re: Should Civil Forfeiture Exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chomsky View Post
    That's exactly how it used to be, before the mid-eighties and Reagan's War on Drugs.

    Up until then, the accused first had to be found criminally guilty of running a criminal for-profit enterprise (not merely possession, but dealing for profit). After a guilty dealing verdict, the state had to do a separate civil case demonstrating the convicted had profited from his crimes, and only then could a judge rule for forfeiture. I seem to recall the forfeiture amount would not exceed the criminal profits generated, but can't state that definitively.
    Absolutely agree that no forfeiture should happen before a verdict is determined. DH Kirkwood brought up the drug war which I agree should not be happening anyways IMO. The part I bolded from your quote is interesting too that I could agree with as well.
    Quote Originally Posted by Praxas
    Yes, we know that you don't care Trump bragged about walking in on underage girls naked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    And that bothers you because????????
    -In 2017, conservatives said they were concerned about women being assaulted in bathrooms. In 2018 conservatives showed women they wouldn’t believe them if they were.

  6. #16
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    204,535

    Re: Should Civil Forfeiture Exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    It never ceases to amaze me that civil asset forfeiture is a thing that can exist in any Western Democracy. In a sane universe, the revelation that asset forfeiture would be made public, there would be a huge scandal, and then asset forfeiture would be immediately done away with. This does not appear to be that universe.
    OK let me ask you this (BTW I am opposed to the war on drugs but for the purpose of this discussion, we will assume it is a legitimate area of law enforcement)

    here is a case I tried

    30 something guy with dubious sources of legitimate income (stuff that could not be confirmed) is busted with 150K of weed in his house and lots of cash, etc) He is arrested and convicted of trafficking and most of the money is criminally forfeited.

    DEA Task force gets a tip that he had stashed another 250 K in his parents' house. TF goes to the home on a warrant. They find the safe that was identified by the mope's brother as belong to the mope. The mother is at work-the stepfather of the dealer says he hasn't any clue what is in the safe or what the combination is. Mother returns home./ Her son's phone is tapped (she didn't know that and we couldn't tell that to the jury for reasons not relevant here). She asks him what the combination is and opens the safe-over 200K in bills packaged exactly like the bills at the dealers' home

    Dealer denies the money is his. Mom Claims it is her savings. A forensic accountant examines her finances-testifies uncontradicted-that the woman-despite her 85K-95K (depending on overtime) salary per year was NOT sufficient to generate that much cash. Three different trained dogs HIT on the cash. Jury finds that she was not the owner of the cash and it is CIVILLY forfeited to the US Government

    now the mother was not charged with trafficking or drug possession or drug abuse.

    was that action proper by the feds?
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    Yeah; a shotgun IS a rifle; it uses a different load.
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    You know that Reagan signed the Brady Bill - right?
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    I'm smart on the gun issue and what we need to do about it.

  7. #17
    Respected on both sides

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    50,545

    Re: Should Civil Forfeiture Exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    OK let me ask you this (BTW I am opposed to the war on drugs but for the purpose of this discussion, we will assume it is a legitimate area of law enforcement)

    here is a case I tried

    30 something guy with dubious sources of legitimate income (stuff that could not be confirmed) is busted with 150K of weed in his house and lots of cash, etc) He is arrested and convicted of trafficking and most of the money is criminally forfeited.

    DEA Task force gets a tip that he had stashed another 250 K in his parents' house. TF goes to the home on a warrant. They find the safe that was identified by the mope's brother as belong to the mope. The mother is at work-the stepfather of the dealer says he hasn't any clue what is in the safe or what the combination is. Mother returns home./ Her son's phone is tapped (she didn't know that and we couldn't tell that to the jury for reasons not relevant here). She asks him what the combination is and opens the safe-over 200K in bills packaged exactly like the bills at the dealers' home

    Dealer denies the money is his. Mom Claims it is her savings. A forensic accountant examines her finances-testifies uncontradicted-that the woman-despite her 85K-95K (depending on overtime) salary per year was NOT sufficient to generate that much cash. Three different trained dogs HIT on the cash. Jury finds that she was not the owner of the cash and it is CIVILLY forfeited to the US Government

    now the mother was not charged with trafficking or drug possession or drug abuse.

    was that action proper by the feds?
    That's a nice anecdote, but it does nothing to get to the heart of whether civil asset forfeiture has become systemically abused in order to fund police departments. Your post is basically an argument that the intentions justify any outcome.

    The genesis of the practice and its outcome is analogous to the "Rat Effect":

    Rat effect

    A similar incident occurred in Hanoi, Vietnam, under French colonial rule. The colonial regime created a bounty program that paid a reward for each rat killed. To obtain the bounty, people would provide the severed rat tail. Colonial officials, however, began noticing rats in Hanoi with no tails. The Vietnamese rat catchers would capture rats, lop off their tails, and then release them back into the sewers so that they could procreate and produce more rats, thereby increasing the rat catchers' revenue. Historian Michael Vann argues that the cobra example from British India cannot be proven, but that the rats in Vietnam case can be proven, so the term could be changed to the "rat effect".
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect

    So did the intentions for the bounty make it a resounding success when the outcome is factored in?

  8. #18
    Sage Xelor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,991

    Re: Should Civil Forfeiture Exist?

    Civil forfeiture as described in the OP has its time and place, and there are, of course, instances and situations in which it is unjust.
    Those who jettison the epistemological standards of science are no longer in a position to use their intellectual product to make any claims about what is true of the world or to dispute the others’ claims about what is true. - Tooby & Cosmides
    The lion does not turn around when a small dog barks. -- African Proverb

  9. #19
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    204,535

    Re: Should Civil Forfeiture Exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    To me civil foreiture is a violation of the constitution.
    if any government agent wants to take my stuff they should first have to prove it in a court of law.

    me walking down the street with 10k or 20k dollars in my pocket is 100% legal and constitutional and none
    of the government business as to why i have it.

    also even if the government seizes my items they are 100% responsible for returning every bit of it back too me if i am cleared of any and all charges.
    why courts let them get away with is gross blatant unconstitutional theft is beyond me.

    I agree but what about this COMMON Scenario

    I had another case where a girl was busted for DUI and there was 18K in cash in a paper bag. WE knew it was drug money but we couldn't tell the jury because there was a big investigation going on that lead to 8 people getting over 15 years each for narcotics trafficking, extortion, and one murder of a witness. Now a lottery winner-a friend of the dealer's father-stepped forward and claimed it was his money. He was never charged since he had nothing to do with the drugs. The only offense that could have been charged was perjury (three years later, the dealer ratted this guy out -we declined prosecution for reasons not relevant)

    The DEA seized the cash. The jury heard from the lottery winner. After a week of federal trial time, the Jury-in fifteen minutes-found that the claimant was not the actual owner of the cash and the DEA was granted the verdict.

    tell me why this is improper
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    Yeah; a shotgun IS a rifle; it uses a different load.
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    You know that Reagan signed the Brady Bill - right?
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    I'm smart on the gun issue and what we need to do about it.

  10. #20
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    204,535

    Re: Should Civil Forfeiture Exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    That's a nice anecdote, but it does nothing to get to the heart of whether civil asset forfeiture has become systemically abused in order to fund police departments. Your post is basically an argument that the intentions justify any outcome.

    The genesis of the practice and its outcome is analogous to the "Rat Effect":



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect

    So did the intentions for the bounty make it a resounding success when the outcome is factored in?


    you ignore the obvious ramifications. If people who have made money illicitly can give that money to confederates for safekeeping, and since the confederates themselves are not part of the actual narcotics trafficking, that means the money cannot be touched by the government
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    Yeah; a shotgun IS a rifle; it uses a different load.
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    You know that Reagan signed the Brady Bill - right?
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    I'm smart on the gun issue and what we need to do about it.

Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •