Civil Forfeiture

[DngrMse]

This idea originally comes from the English practice of declaring 'things' deodand.....if an object were instrumental in causing the death of a British subject, that object could be declared Deodand, and either it, or it's equivalent value in money at the time, was forfeited to the Crown.

We've expanded on that, and now death is not a requirement, nor guilt, (by the owner), in any crime whatsoever. Approximately 80 percent of those in this country who've had property siezed, and forfeited under our rather lax laws, are never charged with a criminal act at all. Many innocent people in this country have been killed by law enforcement agents while having their propery seized. Yet it continues. Congress has addressed this twice, in recent memory, and it only gets worse. (And this is bipartisan in nature....forfeitures increased twentyfold under Carter, and Reagan expanded the use of civil forfeiture in the 'war on drugs' further during his terms in office)

We can thank our 'war on drugs' for the current mess, and we can thank, (partially), our inability to 'win' this war on the profitability of forfeiture laws to law enforcement agencies that are allegedly fighting this war. It is much more profitable for them not to win this war, thanks to the fact that they get to keep much of what they seize in it's prosecution. If they win, that easy money dries up, if drugs are legalized, that easy money dries up. If congress acts, that easy money dries up. Neither the feds, nor the states have any interest in winning this war....they're making too much money at it.

They don't need to prove you're guilty of anything, and you have little recourse if your property is seized. There were some positive changes made in 2000, but the reform measure was, (and is), full of contradictory, and vaguely worded passages that can be interpreted differently, by different judges. Maybe you get lucky, maybe not. Our justice system should not depend on 'maybe' to determine guilt, yet that's how it works. Forfeiture is used widely as a punitive measure where prosecutors lack the evidence required to win a conviction in a criminal court, (though the SC prefers to refer to this as 'remedial', rather than punitive......which makes a lot of difference to people who find themselves suddenly deprived of their property, I'm sure).

The most equitable way of dealing with this issue, while still preserving the govt's ability to seize ill gotten property is by applying the same standards we do with criminal cases, and which was argued more than 200 years ago by AG Lee, ".....then it should only be brought subsequent to a criminal conviction, whereby the forfeiture is justified by proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the owner committed the offense, and that the property forfeited was a proceed or instrumentality of the crime."

[jack_boot]

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I seem to remember hearing that the courts have decided that if they grab your property they can't criminally prosecute, because that would be something they call "double jeopardy".

That would explain why most of the sheep getting sheared are not thrown into cages to boot.

None of this has anything to do with any earthly concept of justice, so I can only guess why the courts would say such a thing.

[Java_man]

Great Topic !

I'm surprised this has not been brought up more often

Civil Property Forfeiture Laws have degenerated the fifth amendment from "No person shall be deprived of ... property, without due process of law" into "Licence to Steal"

This pathetic miscarriage of justice, that is truly a bipartisan albatross, cannot be repealed fast enough.

The main problem is it is an enormous cash-cow for every layer of govt ... so it will die a hard death

This Is Your Bill of Rights, On Drugs

Need more proof of this abusurdity ?

check this out:

No. 94,025
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS
STATE OF KANSAS ,
PRATT COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT,

Appellant
v.

1997 CHEVROLET MONTE CARLO
(VIN # 2G1WX12X3V9301308);

Link

[Java_man]

Originally Posted by Java_man

Great Topic !

Apparently, I'm the only one that thinks so ...

here are some keywords that seem to excite discussion here ...

Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah and Abortion!

[DngrMse]

Originally Posted by jack_boot

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I seem to remember hearing that the courts have decided that if they grab your property they can't criminally prosecute, because that would be something they call "double jeopardy".

This was argued before the Supreme Court, and this is where they, the SC, came up the idea of 'remedial', instead of 'punitive'. That way, they get their cake, and they can eat it too. However, it's much cheaper to just seize property, than to go to all the trouble of pressing criminal charges. Profitable too, as I've mentioned.

[DngrMse]

Originally Posted by Java_man

Apparently, I'm the only one that thinks so ...

here are some keywords that seem to excite discussion here ...

Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah , Israel , Lebanon , Hezbollah and Abortion!

Yeah....I get tired of just politics, or just whatever makes up the headlines. I'm in the minority too, it seems.

[DngrMse]

Originally Posted by Java_man

Great Topic !

Thanks.

I'm surprised this has not been brought up more often

I've brought it up before, a year or so ago.

The main problem is it is an enormous cash-cow for every layer of govt ... so it will die a hard death

In their attempts to reform forfeiture laws, congress built in some nice loopholes. One such involves the disbursement of seized property to the law enforcement agencies that were instrumental in seizing the properties. It's a big no-no these days, hence the birth of the 'Joint Fed-State Taskforce', where combined elements of federal, and state officers do the seizing, and later the feds grant the equivalent value of the seized property back to the state authorities. That way there's no taint of corruption.

[flaming_liberal]

Everyone recognizes this as a bad thing. Since it's bipartisan, typical battle lines cannot be drawn, so that takes the wind out of a lot of people's sails. Plus, there's nothing that can really be argued or discussed about it outside of maybe anecdotes, but those discussions are boring. Hell, we cannot even have the hate-filled jokes that fill the discussions of discussion boards that are clearly partisan. It's an interesting topic, but that's about it. There's not a whole lot for most of us to say about it, other than the fact that it's bad.

[jack_boot]

"Down with asset forfeiture" is not exactly a blood-curdling battle cry. I can't imagine mobs of middle class office workers in the streets waving their laptops and howling for Joint Fed-State Disbursement bureaucratic heads. While forfeiture is common enough, it always seems to happen to the other guy, the guy who probably is a criminal anyway or "they" wouldn't be going after him in the first place, and so forth.

So there we have it. Now the whole concept has been kicked up a notch with the latest eminent domain rulings....

Speaking of White Punks on Dope, how did SCOTUS finally resolve that "double-jeopardy"?

This was argued before the Supreme Court, and this is where they, the SC, came up the idea of 'remedial', instead of 'punitive'.

Does this mean they decided they can also criminally prosecute after all, just that they don't have to bother?

(I feel like I'm reading science fiction sometimes, the law has become so detached from its purpose.)

[jack_boot]

One other thing, asset forfeiture has a history as long as the federal government; they've always done it.

The idea of arresting property started with the Coast Guard and other maritime variants seizing contraband and the vessels carrying it as well. Well, maybe it didn't "start" there, but certainly much of the justification for the current abuse is based on anti-smuggling measures.

That's their precedent, and once a prosecutor gets precedent in his teeth, God help you.

[DngrMse]

Originally Posted by jack_boot

Does this mean they decided they can also criminally prosecute after all, just that they don't have to bother?

Yes they can, approximately 20 percent of those who have property seized, are also prosecuted in criminal courts. They just don't have too, and since it's in their interest to just grab whatever cash, and valuables might be laying around, that's the route they take....80 percent of the time. The criteria under which property can be seized is less stringent than that required to win a criminal conviction. For the cops, it's win-win. (of course, it also makes the drug trade that much more lucrative....which in turn makes civil forfeiture that much more lucrative....which in turn...well, you can see where this goes ).

(I feel like I'm reading science fiction sometimes, the law has become so detached from its purpose.)

Even it's original purpose is bizarre. The English used it, (deodand), and were in essence assigning guilt to inanimate objects. The objects killed, and were forfeit to the Crown.....the object was being 'punished', not the property owner. There were even cases where outraged property owners were able to get some judgements reversed...at least partially. Instead of declaring an entire carriage responsible for the death of a woman, it was decided only the wheel that ran over her was guilty, and it alone was seized.....or a single brick, or stone falling from a house. It helped having connections, but the powers that were demanded something, and usually got it.