• 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
TurtleDude said:
there is an innocent owner defense-I lend my son my car and he scores a nickel bag of crack, and is busted, I can claim that I didn't know he had drugs. Or if I give a co-worker a ride to work and in his briefcase is a kilo of Peruvian Blow.

or if some squatter grows weed on my cornfields that I don't regularly visit
Click to expand...

Right, but you are guilty until you pay lawyer a lot of money to get your property back.
 
Praxas said:
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?



Don't do the crime if someone is concerned with losing their property.



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.
Click to expand...

You are clearly unaware of how much punishment imprisonment is. They take years of your life away. You also lose all the money you would have made, no life progress.

And it ore the moral hazard. Make property forfeit for crimes and you'll see more things made criminal.

Or current forfeiture law.

I can see taking the mansion you bought with the profits from your child sex slavery ring. But the family farm that was never used in the operation? Because they'll take that too.
 
TurtleDude said:
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?
Click to expand...

I thought you were gonna say they went after the parents house.

They're lucky they didn't, right? As she technically conspired in the crime?
 
What if...? said:
I think any forfeiture should be limited to fruits of the operation. Onus on the defendant to prove it was purchased prior to the beginning of the criminal activity in question and not used in the operation. No "he parked a car full of drugs in the driveway once" nonsense.

Civil asset forfeiture has been grotesquely abused. I can't believe it exists as a commonplace thing. A source of income for police departments, pulling people over, searching them and taking cash and vehicles if they think the "suspect" won't be able to do anything about it. (They don't take the neurosurgeons Bentley)

Literally.

Further, any assets seized go away from the locality in which they are collected. Into some fund that doesn't get back to them. Remove all incentive beyond enforcement of the law.

Because they clearly can't navigate the moral hazard.
Click to expand...

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.
 
I think people have the wrong impression of in rem jurisdiction. It exists and frankly it has existed since the founding of the Republic. Of course, the news tends to focus on the injustices, which I am not saying they shouldn't, but the typical case isn't really that controversial. Of most of it is related to the drug war itself which I actually am opposed to, but that's really a separate issue.
 
Praxas said:
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?



Don't do the crime if someone is concerned with losing their property.



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.
Click to expand...

I'm actually on the fence when it comes to rapists or murderers. These are people that I have absolutely no symphathy for . . . but they still have rights. I'm going to disagree with taking their property on principle, but I suppose it doesn't matter, because I think that people who commit rape are murder are actually too dangerous to let out of prison at all.

Everyone else? Even for serious crimes, like GTA or armed robbery, I beleive in second chances. In my sector of the world, I can't throw a stone without hitting someone who's done time for something. A lot of these old rednecks got stories of really stupid/callous **** they did when they were younger, so I absolutely can't agree with the 'don't do the crime if . . ' mentality even for serious felonies, assault, burglary, and so on. We don't need to punish these people from every angle to enact justice. Taking their property on top of imprisonment feels like a slippery-slope to feeling as if no amount of punishment on top of the prison-time is too excessive, because these are no longer people once they commit such crimes.

For those that do attempt to turn their life around and live more honestly, that's going to be a lot harder if after getting out of prison, they find that what property that they might have owned, is gone. It just sounds like another way of keeping revitisism high.
 
only courts should be able to forfeit money and only on a guilty verdict for a crime that had to do with financial gains due to criminal behavior.
 
The value of civil forfeiture assets now exceeds the value of all the burglaries in this country. That's a LOT of money. The real crooks here are law enforcement. And the politicians that make it possible. Everyone is entitled to due process. And more importantly, the punishment should fit the crime. Selling drugs at grandma's house; bad on you but she shouldn't lose her home because of it.
 
TurtleDude said:
that's a cop out.
Click to expand...

I don't think it IS a cop out. Nobody should have to go bankrupt or lose assets to defend themselves against charges for something he/she did not do. Those bringing the charges, when they do so for opportunistic or frivolous reasons, or for reasons other than the actual offense charged should incur all the expense for any damages brought against the innocent person. And even if there is sufficient reason to charge somebody through no wrongful or deliberate act of the person charged, there should be some way for the innocent person to be restored in his/her reputation, or whatever financial loss he/she has incurred.

The standard for charging people with crimes should be very high, very specific, and applied with the utmost care and evenhandedly for all, not for just those we would like to charge with something or coerce in some way.
 
Last edited:
DH Kirkwood said:
I'm going to be shocked if this actually turns into a debate. Nobody should like this. I can't fathom how anybody on either side of the fence could defend this, or why.
Click to expand...

Curious DH, what is the difference between a $$$ fine, and forfeiture of ill gotten gain, other than the state has to manage turning seized property into cash? I have hard time imagining a criminal justice system better than one financed by criminal forfeiture. If it weren't for criminals, we wouldn't even need law enforcement
You don't have a problem with fines, do you?
Regards,
CP
 
It's a horrible thing to do to anyone. I too cannot believe we put up with it. This is legal robbery as far as I am concerned. There is no reason to do it except when it can be proven in a court of law that whatever they are taking from you was the result of an illegal act of profit. I had a friend that lost everything he owned including his house because he got busted with an 8 ball. He was a highly paid engineer, his dallies with an 8 ball now and then did not buy his house yet they said he was a dealer and everything he owned was taken. The DA bought his house before it went to auction for a pittance.
 
concernedpuma said:
Curious DH, what is the difference between a $$$ fine, and forfeiture of ill gotten gain, other than the state has to manage turning seized property into cash? I have hard time imagining a criminal justice system better than one financed by criminal forfeiture. If it weren't for criminals, we wouldn't even need law enforcement
You don't have a problem with fines, do you?
Regards,
CP
Click to expand...


WTF?????????

Wow, this post exhibits a very shallow understanding of the evils of forfeiture.
 
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...

im against it, innocent until proven guilty its that simple . . not to mention how nonregulated it is.
Dont know if its true but i have read stories where they have applied this to ASSOCIATES of the "suspect". Person on their famileis property, friends property etc that is nothign but black male in my opinion.

Now once guilty? hell whatever but again i would STILL want it regulated.
 
noonereal said:
just for starts, those who had no involvement with the alleged crime—often don’t get their property back.

WTF is OK with this?
Click to expand...

Okay - I'll play. When and who was in no way involved but suffered in their innocence? I don't fear civil forfeiture, why do you, or better, who is it you fear for? Please don't take the cheap out and say all American's. The Supreme court could change the laws, but hasn't.
Regards,
CP
 
Waddy said:
Most civil forfeiture is against blacks (demographically speaking). So I guess it doesn't really matter.

https://www.greenvilleonline.com/in...res-taken-exclusive-investigation/2457838002/

BTW; this is the most in-depth story ever done on this issue.
Click to expand...

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
 
Xelor said:
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.
Click to expand...

Time and place: GANGSTER outfits and operations - - real RICO stuff.

Time and place where it has never been applied: Give you three guesses and the first two don't count.

Time and place it is MOST often applied: Poor shlubs driving down the road with a large amount of cash.

Dale Agostini

Ron Henderson

Phil Parhamovich

Three of thousands of completely innocent people doing completely innocent things, and who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, that being: in the presence of crooked cops.
 
If there is suspicion that asserts from illegal gains are going to be moved around to protect them, freeze them on arrest.
Confiscate them on conviction.
Release them on vindication.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Time and place: GANGSTER outfits and operations - - real RICO stuff.

Time and place where it has never been applied: Give you three guesses and the first two don't count.

Time and place it is MOST often applied: Poor shlubs driving down the road with a large amount of cash.

Dale Agostini

Ron Henderson

Phil Parhamovich

Three of thousands of completely innocent people doing completely innocent things, and who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, that being: in the presence of crooked cops.
Click to expand...

A good law, process or policy that's poorly designed, written or applied is one that should be amended, not discarded.


Appeal-to-Fools-2.jpg
 
concernedpuma said:
Curious DH, what is the difference between a $$$ fine, and forfeiture of ill gotten gain, other than the state has to manage turning seized property into cash? I have hard time imagining a criminal justice system better than one financed by criminal forfeiture. If it weren't for criminals, we wouldn't even need law enforcement
You don't have a problem with fines, do you?
Regards,
CP
Click to expand...

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.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Time and place: GANGSTER outfits and operations - - real RICO stuff.

Time and place where it has never been applied: Give you three guesses and the first two don't count.

Time and place it is MOST often applied: Poor shlubs driving down the road with a large amount of cash.

Dale Agostini

Ron Henderson

Phil Parhamovich

Three of thousands of completely innocent people doing completely innocent things, and who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, that being: in the presence of crooked cops.
Click to expand...
A poor schlub "with large amounts of cash" . I have to assume there as a reason for conjoining these two obviously different classes of people. What is it?
Crooked cops? That goes to your jaded idea of police, 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...

Thank you for pointing me to the Wikipedia assertation. I read it and considered it as well from your point of view, as best I could. What I am concerned with is the baby and bathwater simile. I have no doubt that an innocent person may regain their possessions if there is no direct link to a wrongdoer. If that is not so, there needs to be some review of the application, for sure.
Respectfully, and with best regards,
CP
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom