111–120 of 156 posts
I’ve had this explained to me before but I can never fully understand the constitutionality civil forfeiture.
Also, when stuff like this gets taken, part of it goes to the state, part to the county. That needs to end too. We see it over and over, take the incentive away and this stops.
How can those sheriffs and deputies look in the mirror at the end of the day?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Th jury for the trial for the crimes they never charged him with? Maybe they didn’t have evidence of a crime if they didn’t charge him. What is your reasoning?
That they had substantial evidence of his intent to traffic (see the other comment on this thread that tracked down the NE Supreme Court case, which cited even more evidence), and probably would indeed have arrested him if he didn't fork over the cash. I feel like I've been pretty clear about this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That they had substantial evidence of his intent to traffic (see the other comment on this thread that tracked down the NE Supreme Court case, which cited even more evidence), and probably would indeed have arrested him if he didn't fork over the cash. I feel like I've been pretty clear about this.
He didn’t fork over his cash. They confiscated it under his objection. If they had evidence of a crime they would have charged it.
CAF makes my blood boil. If not for the uniforms these people would be called bandits. How did we end up with so many people in law enforcement and the judicial system who have accepted “the end justifies the means” or “you gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette”? I would love to see legislation at every level forbidding civil fines and forfeitures from benefitting the locality imposing them. Let such revenue go…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and certainly not wanting to argue in favor of civil asset forfeiture, which is obviously abused nationwide I feel like even entertaining these conversations about what crime the individual may have been contemplating allows the conversation to be derailed. If the individual had been caught in the act of handing over cash for illegal drugs, it would still be an outrageous corruption for the police to simply seize t…
I'm not sure I follow. If he'd actually been caught trafficking, what would the conflict of interest be?
Even if you require a conviction before CAF can be applied, it means that police funding is directly tied to number of convictions instead of the health of the community, and in particular ties funding to convictions in cases where large amounts of money are involved. This disincentivizes preventatory measures of any sort (because preventing crime brings no profit in the short term and decreases profit in the long term), and it means that rather than focusing on crime that has a substantial impact on the health of the community police officers are incentivized to focus on crimes that are likely to net a large amount of cash, which is not a great predictor for the actual impact on society.
While the cited behaviour is really astonishing, as a EU citizen, I must say that I still find it very curious that somebody drives around the country with that large amount of cash. I'd never (and most people here wouldn't either) travel with more than, say, $1000 in cash, and I would rely on ATM/electronic transactions/checks for additional money. Surely it wouldn't be illegal in any EU country that I know of (but…
I’ve had this explained to me before but I can never fully understand the constitutionality civil forfeiture.
I get a yearly letter from county Treasurer demanding I pay them to avoid having my private, not commercial, house stolen. Government asset seizure is widespread.
I’ve had this explained to me before but I can never fully understand the constitutionality civil forfeiture.
I get a yearly letter from county Treasurer demanding I pay them to avoid having my private, not commercial, house stolen. Government asset seizure is widespread.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure I follow. If he'd actually been caught trafficking, what would the conflict of interest be?
It creates many perverse incentives for law enforcement. Even if you require a conviction before CAF can be applied, it means that police funding is directly tied to number of convictions instead of the health of the community, and in particular ties funding to convictions in cases where large amounts of money are involved. This disincentivizes preventatory measures of any sort (because preventing crime brings no pro…