• 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!

Should Civil Forfeiture Exist?

Should Civil Forfeiture Exist?

  • Total voters
    75
chuckiechan said:
No. Just like being presumed to be innocent, assets should be presumed to be his until trial when his income is broken out into job vs illegal income.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much what I meant. And assets seized should not go to the departments who harvest them. To reduce the moral hazard.
 
DH Kirkwood said:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States

Just read the first sentence or two, bro; we are not talking about the seizure of the property of convicts, at least not in the post that you quoted. We're talking about how it's basically legal for cops to gank people's **** on trumped up allegations without ever having to make an arrest or go through any sort of due process.

However[i/], in a side-tracked conversation with another guy, I did contest, on principle, doing the same to convicted felons. No, I don't have anything against fines, but let it be part of the sentencing, and let it be appropriate to whatever crime has been committed. Perhaps that's the post that you meant to quote? I see it as a means and an incentive towards exploitation. That's not to say that I don't have my worries about how fines might be abused.
Click to expand...


Certainly my brother, I would join you in railing against the existence of a governmental agency that, for no reason, would attach the assets of an innocent. Quite truthfully, that would be Anti-American. I do trust the courts to sort that out. I have no fear that the courts are so cruel, but rather think they are quite liberal(sorry for the use of that word, but I can't think of a better word just now)when considering cases. The crux is this, if a criminal has benefitted from their criminal endeavor, it should be forfeit. If Mom loans me her car, and I stick up a liquor store, part of the events, can be traced to her, right?
Regards,
CP
 
DH Kirkwood said:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States

Just read the first sentence or two, bro; we are not talking about the seizure of the property of convicts, at least not in the post that you quoted. We're talking about how it's basically legal for cops to gank people's **** on trumped up allegations without ever having to make an arrest or go through any sort of due process.

However[i/], in a side-tracked conversation with another guy, I did contest, on principle, doing the same to convicted felons. No, I don't have anything against fines, but let it be part of the sentencing, and let it be appropriate to whatever crime has been committed. Perhaps that's the post that you meant to quote? I see it as a means and an incentive towards exploitation. That's not to say that I don't have my worries about how fines might be abused.
Click to expand...


The poster likes the idea of blacks being assumed guilty until proven innocent and if a mistake is made, so what, keep their stuff, they are black.

A real Trumpet.
 
concernedpuma said:
Certainly my brother, I would join you in railing against the existence of a governmental agency that, for no reason, would attach the assets of an innocent. Quite truthfully, that would be Anti-American. I do trust the courts to sort that out. I have no fear that the courts are so cruel, but rather think they are quite liberal(sorry for the use of that word, but I can't think of a better word just now)when considering cases. The crux is this, if a criminal has benefitted from their criminal endeavor, it should be forfeit. If Mom loans me her car, and I stick up a liquor store, part of the events, can be traced to her, right?
Regards,
CP
Click to expand...

This is not how it is so rethink your position as it pertains to the real world.

The court is perfectly able to take the ill gained assets of criminals without the awful use of condiscation.

Let me guess, you like that law enforcement uses entrapment too.

Figures.
 
noonereal said:
The poster likes the idea of blacks being assumed guilty until proven innocent and if a mistake is made, so what, keep their stuff, they are black.

A real Trumpet.
Click to expand...

I don't really care about your history with this user, or even whether or not he's racist. I thought the conversation was going well enough that I'm a bit annoyed that someone else decided to throw fecal matter into the mix. Dude,even if he's exactly how you say it is, this isn't a fruitful way of engaging with people that hold such views.

I wasn't going to come back into this thread until and unless I could find the time to compile a list of people wrongfully effected by civil asset forfeiture, but ****, here I am.
 
Last edited:
DH Kirkwood said:
I don't really care about your history with this user, or even whether or not he's racist. I thought the conversation was going well enough that I'm a bit annoyed that someone else decided to throw fecal matter into the mix. Dude,even if he;s exactly how you say it is, this isn't a fruitful way of engaging with people that hold such views.
Click to expand...

WTF? Who the hell are you, dude?
 
Carjosse said:
A few days ago jamesrage posted this thread 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.
Click to expand...

It's legal robbery.
 
concernedpuma said:
Okay. Mostly against black skinned people. What is it that proves? You can walk away with two entirely notions of what it shows. Are you somehow suggesting that if the numbers aren't representative of societal percentage, by skin color, criminals should be forgiven until the desired percentile is reached? I am for forfeiture of possessions upon conviction, released if not, but frozen until that can be settled.
Regards,
CP
Click to expand...

If upon conviction, after due process, it turns out that the majority of criminals having cash on them are black, then that's just how it is. But since blacks are stopped at a much higher rate than others, and their cash is seized at a much higher rate than others, it does make you wonder if blacks are being targeted in this thing. I believe they are; because they can afford attorneys in most cases, whites are twice as likely as blacks, who generally can't afford attorneys, to get their money back, or some of it at least, at the end of the lengthy court process. It can't be lost on the police that most of the time blacks won't be able to fight back in court. That's why they target blacks, and besides they're an easy target.
 
Civil Forfeiture is just another way for government to steal from people. There is not enough oversight, restrictions, regulations to allow it to continue. But of course the government loves it because they can just steal your stuff and never even have to prove you guilty of anything.
 
TurtleDude said:
so if the dealer denies it is his, and the government proves that the claimant is lying-do you still have a problem with that?
Click to expand...

The government should prove it belongs to the dealer. If the government can't do that then than the claimant can keep the cash.
 
jamesrage said:
The government should prove it belongs to the dealer. If the government can't do that then than the claimant can keep the cash.
Click to expand...

if the dealer doesn't make a claim to it-he has no standing. the duty is on the claimant to prove it is his
 
Carjosse said:
A few days ago jamesrage posted this thread 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.
Click to expand...
Civil asset forfeiture should not exist.

Anything taken by the police should be returned in the same condition, or compensation for it's damage or loss given.
Except when a court rules that items are forfeit due to the actions of someone convicted.

Since that is not currently the case, laws or if necessary the constitution must be changed so that it is.
 
ludin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Because those who would prevent it benefit from it, perhaps.
 
TurtleDude said:
if the dealer doesn't make a claim to it-he has no standing. the duty is on the claimant to prove it is his
Click to expand...

If the prosecution is claiming its dealer's money then its on the prosecution to prove it, not the claimant's job to prove its theirs. After all its law enforcement who are claiming its the drug dealer's money as their excuse for confiscating it.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
If the prosecution is claiming its dealer's money then its on the prosecution to prove it, not the claimant's job.
Click to expand...

that's not how it works. the burden is upon the government to prove that the asset is derived from illicit activity or that the asset was used to facilitate illicit activity. if either of those are true, the asset is forfeitable. Money derived from illicit activity -there really is no innocent owner defense. an example-a bank robber steals 100K from a Bank-he's busted and before the money is recovered in its entirety, he takes 25K and gives it to an attorney as a retainer for defending him. The lawyer cannot claim the government is not entitled to take the money from him merely because the LAWYER did not engage in a felony. Only the bank would have a valid interest superior to the government

money derived from narcotics-no one has an innocent owner interest

Now if you own a vehicle and someone borrows it and you have no knowledge that they plan to use it to traffic narcotics, you may assert an innocent owner defense
 
TurtleDude said:
that's not how it works. the burden is upon the government to prove that the asset is derived from illicit activity or that the asset was used to facilitate illicit activity. if either of those are true, the asset is forfeitable. Money derived from illicit activity -there really is no innocent owner defense. an example-a bank robber steals 100K from a Bank-he's busted and before the money is recovered in its entirety, he takes 25K and gives it to an attorney as a retainer for defending him. The lawyer cannot claim the government is not entitled to take the money from him merely because the LAWYER did not engage in a felony. Only the bank would have a valid interest superior to the government

money derived from narcotics-no one has an innocent owner interest

Now if you own a vehicle and someone borrows it and you have no knowledge that they plan to use it to traffic narcotics, you may assert an innocent owner defense
Click to expand...
If the government can prove that in a criminal court then they can take it.If not it should be illegal for the government to take it. Because requiring the claimant to prove its theirs is not the government proving that alleged asset of the drug dealer is derived from illicit activity or proving that it was used to facilitate illicit activity.
 
jamesrage said:
If the government can prove that in a criminal court then they can take it.If not it should be illegal for the government to take it. Because requiring the claimant to prove its theirs is not the government proving that alleged asset of the drug dealer is derived from illicit activity or proving that it was used to facilitate illicit activity.
Click to expand...


I am explaining how the law works. and given that so many drug dealers often stash cash or other assets derived from illegal activity with family members, the system-if the laws are followed, works well to deprive those mopes of their improper profits. Is there abuse? of course there is. But the fact remains, the current state of the law has substantial safeguards.

Now I oppose the federal war on drugs. I don't think it is a worthwhile expenditure of public moneys, law enforcement efforts and it is deleterious to our freedoms.
 
TurtleDude said:
I am explaining how the law works. and given that so many drug dealers often stash cash or other assets derived from illegal activity with family members, the system-if the laws are followed, works well to deprive those mopes of their improper profits. Is there abuse? of course there is. But the fact remains, the current state of the law has substantial safeguards.

Now I oppose the federal war on drugs. I don't think it is a worthwhile expenditure of public moneys, law enforcement efforts and it is deleterious to our freedoms.
Click to expand...

The government is making the accusation its the drug dealer's money.So its on the government to prove its the drug dealer's money and they do that by trying to prove it in a criminal court that its the drug dealer's money. If they can't do that then they have absolutely no business confiscating someone else's property. Its not the claimants job to prove its their money. The assumption under the law is innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent. By requiring the claimant to prove its their money you are saying they are guilty.
 
Carjosse said:
A few days ago jamesrage posted this thread 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.
Click to expand...

No...It shouldn't be a thing.
 
Carjosse said:
A few days ago jamesrage posted this thread 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.
Click to expand...

And here I was thinking that the republicans want smaller government.
 
I voted NO.

Only because there was no option that allowed a "YES" but only after conviction of the principle charged and only of those assets solely belonging to the principle charged and convicted
 
The problem with civil forfeitures is they act like the IRS. They just take whatever they want and then if you can afford the legal fees you can TRY to get it back. But even if that can be done, all the damage done by the seizure still happened so no matter what you already lost.
 
joko104 said:
The problem with civil forfeitures is they act like the IRS. They just take whatever they want and then if you can afford the legal fees you can TRY to get it back. But even if that can be done, all the damage done by the seizure still happened so no matter what you already lost.
Click to expand...

this is only a symptom of a government that has greatly expanded beyond its proper role as a limited government restricted to enumerated powers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom