Don't Gut Civil Asset Forfeiture

al.com ^ | February 12, 2018 | Brian McVeigh, Dave Sutton

[dadfly]

not sure i understand your point. waiting for court conviction isn’t a problem. it’s always the case that conviction is a downstream event to law enforcement. the leftists often argue that preventing crime is properly law enforcement as well, but i would disagree with that.

“Until then, everything is merely alleged”

i don’t think that is true. first, the crime and it’s immediate effects usually happen before a conviction or even arrest. it is the first cause. thus the occurrence of a crime is generally known by the perpetrator and it’s effects (witnesses) and evidence (crime scene, implements, money, etc.) before anything happens with leo or the court.

what the system attempts to “prove” are the facts of perpetration and intent (who, when, etc). that is done to publically execute appropriate retribution and/or atonement for sake of the victim(s), while protecting society by introducing a credible deterrent to prevent future crime.

thus, law enforcement always happens in parallel or after the crime.

i believe, the Constitution and the various state constitutions allow for law enforcement before conviction under restriction. The question is the legal definition of proper law enforcement and whether the enforcers are breaking the law while attempting to enforcing it.

[Wuli]

“Requiring criminal convictions would result in more criminal charges filed and more people going to prison for lesser crimes. Consider pretrial diversion programs, such as drug court, for example. These programs allow people arrested for nonviolent crimes, including some drug charges, to go into treatment and other programs that keep them out of prison. Participants in these programs are not convicted of a crime, so under the proposed change, the only way to deprive them of their ill-gotten gains would be to prosecute them.”

Clearly they are admitting, in that statement, the real purpose of civil asset forfeiture is to seize assets from which the local police can get money for themselves with sales/auctions of seized assets. So, instead of getting first time offenders into treatment programs - which may be the best thing to do - they’ll seek a criminal conviction just so they can seize some assets.

“Meanwhile, sending the proceeds of forfeiture to the state’s General Fund would result in fewer busts of drug and stolen property rings. What incentive would local police and sheriffs have to invest manpower, resources and time in these operations if they don’t receive proceeds to cover their costs? “

Criminal justice SHOULD BE funded by general revenues, not by local entities creating their own corrupt funding mechanisms, turning “justice” into nothing more than how local law enforcement, prosecutors and judges can extract their own funds by seizing people’s assets - people not even convicted of a crime.

[WayneS]

It is pretty clear to most people here that it is you who does not understand civil forfeiture as it is exercised by law enforcement agencies throughout this country.

Furthermore, whether you mentioned it or not, vehicles are routinely seized along with cash, houses, boats and many other consumer items from people who are arrested on “suspicion” of committing a crime.

[JPJones]

“While well-meaning, some of the proposed changes would essentially gut what is an effective crime-fighting tool while making it easier for drug dealers and other criminals to hang on to their ill-gotten gains. “

Not buying it.

Gut away.

[scan59]

Enjoy your police state. Maybe they will confiscate your goods last.