71–80 of 179 posts
https://better-cities.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/BCP-ref...
Severely limiting the scope of civil forfeiture seems like one of those political issues that everyone across the political spectrum can agree on. I'm constantly hearing horror stories like the ones in this article and I've never heard any reasonable defense of our current system. In fact, I've never even heard an unreasonable defense.
> In fact, I've never even heard an unreasonable defense. I suspect like many things, there was some logic to the introduction. But it's just gotten to really batshit levels that there is probably nothing to do but stop the practice. As I understand it, some of the origins were that for debts owed to the government, with the person not present in the country, it was much more practical to target assets that may exist…
Account for the seized assets.
Interledger Protocol works with any type of (digital) asset ledger; W3C ILP.
The FTC CAT Consolidated Audit Trail system does not uniquely identify individual bills / [ledger] dollars, either FWIU. But are photons uniquely identifiable either
Due process: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process :
> Due process developed from clause 39 of Magna Carta in England. Reference to due process first appeared in a statutory rendition of clause 39 in 1354 thus: "No man of what state or condition he be, shall be put out of his lands or tenements nor taken, nor disinherited, nor put to death, without he be brought to answer by due process of law." [3] When English and American law gradually diverged, due process was not upheld in England but became incorporated in the US Constitution.
Whether it's possible to disarm and incapacitate without larceny.
Criminal Justice Reform > Arguments on criminal justice reform > Support for reform https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_justice_reform_in_the...
Save the children.
School-to-prison pipeline > Alternative approaches, Mental Health: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School-to-prison_pipeline
Wait, what? In the US law enforcement can just take peoples' stuff and then the people have to prove that they are innocent in order to get their stuff back? Should this not be the other way around, law enforcement has to prove - within some reasonable amount of time - that the person is guilty, otherwise they get their stuff back, plus some compensation for incurred costs? But even if the person is guilty, why can t…
yes, just like the communists. the state can seize anything with no compensation. private property assurances were masqueraded as a distinctive tenet between the systems but they’ve both converged on a discretionary ownership reality.
This graph from the 2015 article "Law enforcement took more stuff from people than burglars did last year" really rammed this home for me: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops-...
other robbers https://www.fakhimi.com/photos/robbery-versus-burglary.jpg
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yes, just like the communists. the state can seize anything with no compensation. private property assurances were masqueraded as a distinctive tenet between the systems but they’ve both converged on a discretionary ownership reality.
It is a bit bizarre to read about a system of exploitation that has flourished under a capitalist police state and then mention communists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yes, just like the communists. the state can seize anything with no compensation. private property assurances were masqueraded as a distinctive tenet between the systems but they’ve both converged on a discretionary ownership reality.
Communists at least seize stuff with good intentions.
How it's used and abused in practice in both systems is the important part. I'm not sure either system necessarily has a great track record in that respect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is a bit bizarre to read about a system of exploitation that has flourished under a capitalist police state and then mention communists.
Eh, I'm not really pro communism, but it makes sense to me. If one of the central differences people focus on between the systems is private property, if someone sees that as somewhat of an illusion it makes sense to note it.
Means of production is not the same as the shoes on your feet. It's just unfortunately confusing terminology that leads to twisted argumentation.
Btw, the alternative to capitalist liberal states is not exclusively authoritarian marxist-leninist communism. Not all anti-capitalists are pining for another different boot to lick.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Generally speaking, the political argument against is "If you do anything that gives even the appearance of curtailing police powers in any way, we will create the illusion of a crime wave, attribute it to you, and absolutely hammer every form of media with that narrative." (If, God help you, you manage to pass a law that actually curtails police powers, they'll generally act in open defiance instead of doing their j…
It's not just an empty threat either. It's happened numerous times in NYC when the mayor or city council has attempted to reign in the NYPD, they simply stop responding to calls for service and then blame it on the politicians. Even if it doesn't lead to an uptick in crime, it still angers voters that police won't respond to their calls and they take it out at the polls.
The solution to this is either:
- setup a second security force to gradually replace them
or
- subdivide the coverage map into different districts, suss out the districts with poor performing management, then merge the territories of bad areas under the management of good areas
or
- subdivide responsibilities between violent crime, petty crime, and mundane enforcement like traffic, with separate departments for each, and tackle cleaning them up separately.
Really the notion of taking the same "trained" cop for all the roles in an urban area is pretty stupid. Specialized enforcement roles are likely a better solution.
Shadow defunding, without calling it defunding, is also another weapon, but of course Minneapolis blew that by outright calling it defunding.
But really the drug war is what fuels corruption and excessive power. Remove the drug war, and it would kneecap massive amounts of abuse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This kind of power dynamic between the civilian administration and 'the military' would not be considered to be healthy, if it were happening in a sovereign polity. Could a sufficiently wealthy mayor (like Bloomberg) push through privatisation and deunionisation, while using their personal funds to pay for private security for the whole city in case there is a strike? The department's annual budget seems to be around…
The problem in that situation wouldn't be funding, it would be personnel. NYPD is nauseatingly over funded and could do their job with half their current budget, but you can't just pull thirty thousand private security contractors out of your ass.
It's called the national guard.
Wait, what? In the US law enforcement can just take peoples' stuff and then the people have to prove that they are innocent in order to get their stuff back? Should this not be the other way around, law enforcement has to prove - within some reasonable amount of time - that the person is guilty, otherwise they get their stuff back, plus some compensation for incurred costs? But even if the person is guilty, why can t…
Joe Biden was also a huge fan of civil forfeiture in the 80s and 90s: https://fee.org/articles/how-a-young-joe-biden-became-the-ar...