Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 258 posts

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case

#181

Post by coldseattle »

itronitron wrote: post #176
coldseattle wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Quartering Troops" sounds archaic, but every now and then lawmakers propose it, like forcing private airlines to provide discounted or free arrangements for servicemen traveling. (As opposed to negotiating rates with them, or soliciting competitive bids). These proposals usually don't get very far, but it shows you that the Government still thinks it's OK to _force_ a citizen or private business to give free service…

aren't we already quartering troops with the proportion of taxes that support the DoD?

No. They aren't forcing a particular private party to provide personal accommodations to an individual soldier.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case

#182

Post by jessaustin »

sjwright wrote: post #162
another-one-off wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything you said is actually pretty strange. I'm on board with it, but the default what-humans-try-on-the-first-pass approach is to consider each case on its own merits including the people involved (and runs smack-bang into the various -isms, eg, racism). The idea that a scummy and a sympathetic defendant will get the same treatment is genuinely weird and not at all an instinctive approach to justice. This system…

> Everything you said is actually pretty strange. ... The idea that a scummy and a sympathetic defendant will get the same treatment is genuinely weird and not at all an instinctive approach to justice. This is like a topsy-turvy world. The idea that a scummy or sympathetic defendant would not get the same treatment is genuinely weird and not at all an instinctive approach to justice. Equal treatment under the law is…

Charitably, this viewpoint misses a great deal of history. Less charitably, it also misses a great deal of what's actually going on right here right now. Poor defendants plea out. Rich defendants don't get charged, because prosecutors know they can afford to go to trial.

Of course I'm not saying that poor people are "scummy", whatever that means. No one in this thread has to say it, because the courts say it every day.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case

#183

Post by jessaustin »

rconti wrote: post #67

Judges Barnes' Appeals court dissent is perplexing: > “I am keenly aware of the overreach some law enforcement agencies have exercised in some of these cases,” Judge Barnes wrote. “Entire family farms are sometimes forfeited based on one family member’s conduct, or exorbitant amounts of money are seized. However, it seems to me that one who deals heroin, and there is no doubt from the record we are talking about a de…

This seems like judge-speak for "I can't relate to this guy and I don't have any sympathy for him, so screw him!"

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case

#184

Post by jessaustin »

gamblor956 wrote: post #169
jmalicki wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Obama eventually did plug the hole..." citation?

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-prohibits-fe...

That seems like a portion of the hole, but probably not the whole hole?

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case

#185

Post by danschumann »

Cruel and unusual. It's not usual, because everyone has different stuff. Why should someone with a nice car be punished more than someone with no car? There is no justice there. It's cruel, because his car was for more than just the drugs. It's like chopping off someone's hand, because they stole with it- barbaric.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case

#186

Post by sitharus »

18pfsmt wrote: post #158
techsupporter wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Completely agreed. The argument I heard made before is "if people can just move, why do gay people live in [state with no civil protections for gay rights]?" It's an easy one to answer. Family, job, social connections, money; those are just a few. Then comes the question of how free should each state be or not be? What if you are born, for example, both gay and a native Texan[0]? Should Texas have the right to "force…

I grew up moving as my father changed jobs, and I continued the practice on my own when I turned 18. I'm at least 1k miles from any family, and I've had to make new friends many times. It's really not that big of a deal for many people. I think most people I know in Colorado were not born here.

It's not a big deal for most affluent well educated people (I live 18,456km from my birthplace and most of my family), but according to a 2015 study only 20% of Americans live more than a few hours drive from their parents and most live within 18 miles (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/24/upshot/24up-f...)

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case

#187

Post by jessaustin »

sjwright wrote: post #154
ericabiz wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although I don't agree with it, I am knowledgeable about the side in favor of civil forfeiture. (I grew up in Indiana, and my dad was an attorney there.) The "other side" says: Seizing Land Rovers from drug dealers helps fund underfunded rural police departments, and keeps them from having to raise taxes on law-abiding citizens. I have no doubt that every aspect of this viewpoint is debatable. However, that's the vie…

You could also charge a fee to everyone who calls 911. Seriously though. The police are a service provider who are employed by and act on behalf of all citizens. If we want functioning law enforcement, we should be willing to pay for it. We might not appreciate it on a daily basis, but functioning law enforcement saves individuals a lot of money. Imagine if they didn't exist and everyone had to to organise their own…

Imagine if they didn't exist and everyone had to to organise their own security.

In many locations this is effectively the situation. Police show up after crimes are over. Sometimes they help the victims of crime, sometimes they don't. The crimes that police interrupt are largely the victimless ones; after all there is no victim to report the crime so if they want to prosecute they had better catch the accused in the act.

Somebody will say that this only appears to be the case because police have already put lots of criminals in prison. Since there are few criminals remaining, we don't have to worry so much about crimes happening now. I can't agree, at least in USA. Our prison population is 4-5 times what it should be. If they imprison multitudes, they don't get credit for the possibility that some of the imprisoned actually should be imprisoned.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case

#188

Post by martin1975 »

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17210880

This is even more egregious. He will probably get it back eventually through much legal maneuvering but it shouldn't be this easy to screw up some poor soul's life because of a few bad apples this law was enacted for, namely hard to impossible to prosecute drug cartels. These forfeiture laws are basically hammers turning every case into a nail, regardless of merit.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case

#190

Post by noobermin »

coldseattle wrote: post #124
CobrastanJorji wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically you're right. The 10th amendment has been largely neutered by selective incorporation, a very broad reading of the commerce clause, and other decisions. That said, the world in which the 10th amendment is very strong and the fourteenth is weak is much worse for civil rights. Suddenly the states can declare official support for Christianity, ban dissenting speech, shut down newspapers they dislike, search…

"Quartering Troops" sounds archaic, but every now and then lawmakers propose it, like forcing private airlines to provide discounted or free arrangements for servicemen traveling. (As opposed to negotiating rates with them, or soliciting competitive bids). These proposals usually don't get very far, but it shows you that the Government still thinks it's OK to _force_ a citizen or private business to give free service…

Disregarding what the law says, the material reality is that American society today largely respects and thinks highly of the US military, and is not as skeptical of federal government's standing armies.
Post reply on HN