- 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.
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.
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.....
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 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.
The essence of tyranny is not iron law. It is capricious law
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
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.
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, guessworkor 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.
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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?