As a prosecutor Ms. Lynch has also been aggressive in pursuing civil asset forfeiture, which has become a form of policing for profit. She recently announced that her office had collected more than $904 million in criminal and civil actions in fiscal 2013, according to the Brooklyn Daily Eagle. Liberals and conservatives have begun to question forfeiture as an abuse of due process that can punish the innocent.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
As a prosecutor Ms. Lynch has also been aggressive in pursuing civil asset forfeiture, which has become a form of policing for profit. She recently announced that her office had collected more than $904 million in criminal and civil actions in fiscal 2013, according to the Brooklyn Daily Eagle. Liberals and conservatives have begun to question forfeiture as an abuse of due process that can punish the innocent.
Yikes. I don't know a lot about her but she seems qualified and generally inoffensive enough, but civil forfeiture makes me very uncomfortable.
As a prosecutor Ms. Lynch has also been aggressive in pursuing civil asset forfeiture, which has become a form of policing for profit. She recently announced that her office had collected more than $904 million in criminal and civil actions in fiscal 2013, according to the Brooklyn Daily Eagle. Liberals and conservatives have begun to question forfeiture as an abuse of due process that can punish the innocent.
Civil asset forfeiture isn't always bad. It's often a powerful tool for large scale busts and such.
The problem with it is mostly in the way it's used by local police departments who get to keep some or all of the proceeds of that seizure.
+3
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
As a prosecutor Ms. Lynch has also been aggressive in pursuing civil asset forfeiture, which has become a form of policing for profit. She recently announced that her office had collected more than $904 million in criminal and civil actions in fiscal 2013, according to the Brooklyn Daily Eagle. Liberals and conservatives have begun to question forfeiture as an abuse of due process that can punish the innocent.
Civil asset forfeiture isn't always bad. It's often a powerful tool for large scale busts and such.
The problem with it is mostly in the way it's used by local police departments who get to keep some or all of the proceeds of that seizure.
The problem is the lack of process involved. People can have property seized and kept by the police for their use without even being convicted.
As a prosecutor Ms. Lynch has also been aggressive in pursuing civil asset forfeiture, which has become a form of policing for profit. She recently announced that her office had collected more than $904 million in criminal and civil actions in fiscal 2013, according to the Brooklyn Daily Eagle. Liberals and conservatives have begun to question forfeiture as an abuse of due process that can punish the innocent.
Civil asset forfeiture isn't always bad. It's often a powerful tool for large scale busts and such.
The problem with it is mostly in the way it's used by local police departments who get to keep some or all of the proceeds of that seizure.
The problem is the lack of process involved. People can have property seized and kept by the police doe theories use without even being convicted.
I think the greed-based incentives are even worse then that. Because that's what drives the police to do it so much these days.
As a prosecutor Ms. Lynch has also been aggressive in pursuing civil asset forfeiture, which has become a form of policing for profit. She recently announced that her office had collected more than $904 million in criminal and civil actions in fiscal 2013, according to the Brooklyn Daily Eagle. Liberals and conservatives have begun to question forfeiture as an abuse of due process that can punish the innocent.
Civil asset forfeiture isn't always bad. It's often a powerful tool for large scale busts and such.
The problem with it is mostly in the way it's used by local police departments who get to keep some or all of the proceeds of that seizure.
It's pretty much always bad. It should be attached to a criminal conviction, come after said conviction, and still offer its own procedure. I have no problem with taking drug lord's stuff, but the reality is it is a good reason for bad cops to steal shit from random black people and get away with it. But even the feds, and even without individual incentive will still inevitably fuck it up, because whenever you're dealing with the property of (presumed) innocent people, well, it shouldn't be occuring.
As a prosecutor Ms. Lynch has also been aggressive in pursuing civil asset forfeiture, which has become a form of policing for profit. She recently announced that her office had collected more than $904 million in criminal and civil actions in fiscal 2013, according to the Brooklyn Daily Eagle. Liberals and conservatives have begun to question forfeiture as an abuse of due process that can punish the innocent.
Civil asset forfeiture isn't always bad. It's often a powerful tool for large scale busts and such.
The problem with it is mostly in the way it's used by local police departments who get to keep some or all of the proceeds of that seizure.
It's pretty much always bad. It should be attached to a criminal conviction, come after said conviction, and still offer its own procedure. I have no problem with taking drug lord's stuff, but the reality is it is a good reason for bad cops to steal shit from random black people and get away with it. But even the feds, and even without individual incentive will still inevitably fuck it up, because whenever you're dealing with the property of (presumed) innocent people, well, it shouldn't be occuring.
No, that's overly simplistic. It's been used in fraud cases, in cases against organized crime and instances where they can show that the property itself is ill-gotten but for various reasons can't show who specifically committed the crime that got it. It's been used to recover assets from guys like Bernie Madoff to get them back to his victims. Even the recent scathing articles on the subject talk about the benefits of the idea.
As a prosecutor Ms. Lynch has also been aggressive in pursuing civil asset forfeiture, which has become a form of policing for profit. She recently announced that her office had collected more than $904 million in criminal and civil actions in fiscal 2013, according to the Brooklyn Daily Eagle. Liberals and conservatives have begun to question forfeiture as an abuse of due process that can punish the innocent.
Civil asset forfeiture isn't always bad. It's often a powerful tool for large scale busts and such.
The problem with it is mostly in the way it's used by local police departments who get to keep some or all of the proceeds of that seizure.
It's pretty much always bad. It should be attached to a criminal conviction, come after said conviction, and still offer its own procedure. I have no problem with taking drug lord's stuff, but the reality is it is a good reason for bad cops to steal shit from random black people and get away with it. But even the feds, and even without individual incentive will still inevitably fuck it up, because whenever you're dealing with the property of (presumed) innocent people, well, it shouldn't be occuring.
No, that's overly simplistic. It's been used in fraud cases, in cases against organized crime and instances where they can show that the property itself is ill-gotten but for various reasons can't show who specifically committed the crime that got it. It's been used to recover assets from guys like Bernie Madoff to get them back to his victims. Even the recent scathing articles on the subject talk about the benefits of the idea.
Sometimes you get a benevolent dictator (you never actually get a benevolent dictator). The process can be bad even if the results are sometimes good.
As a prosecutor Ms. Lynch has also been aggressive in pursuing civil asset forfeiture, which has become a form of policing for profit. She recently announced that her office had collected more than $904 million in criminal and civil actions in fiscal 2013, according to the Brooklyn Daily Eagle. Liberals and conservatives have begun to question forfeiture as an abuse of due process that can punish the innocent.
Civil asset forfeiture isn't always bad. It's often a powerful tool for large scale busts and such.
The problem with it is mostly in the way it's used by local police departments who get to keep some or all of the proceeds of that seizure.
It's pretty much always bad. It should be attached to a criminal conviction, come after said conviction, and still offer its own procedure. I have no problem with taking drug lord's stuff, but the reality is it is a good reason for bad cops to steal shit from random black people and get away with it. But even the feds, and even without individual incentive will still inevitably fuck it up, because whenever you're dealing with the property of (presumed) innocent people, well, it shouldn't be occuring.
No, that's overly simplistic. It's been used in fraud cases, in cases against organized crime and instances where they can show that the property itself is ill-gotten but for various reasons can't show who specifically committed the crime that got it. It's been used to recover assets from guys like Bernie Madoff to get them back to his victims. Even the recent scathing articles on the subject talk about the benefits of the idea.
Sometimes you get a benevolent dictator (you never actually get a benevolent dictator). The process can be bad even if the results are sometimes good.
This doesn't make any sense as it applies to the situation though.
The problem seems to be primarily the incentives created by giving the funds directly to the people seizing the assets (which just encourages corruption) and the way you get your assets back. And, as always with the police, a lack of oversight.
No, the problem starts with the bar being way too fucking low to sieze them in the first place. I dont know how it qualifies as the constitutionally mandated due process even.
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
NPR was just talking this morning about how NYC is going to use Civil Forfeiture funds to pay for backlogged testing of rape kits, which is apparently a big problem. I didn't catch all the details, but that seems like a legit use, assuming the forfeiture money was gotten above board.
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Look, I don't know about you but I don't want to live an a 'murica where dem terrorists dun have their stuff seized by the good guys immediately when they look at me sideways.
BUT KEEP YER GUBBAHMEN OUTTER MY FORD TRUCK AND KILOS OF CRACK!
NPR was just talking this morning about how NYC is going to use Civil Forfeiture funds to pay for backlogged testing of rape kits, which is apparently a big problem. I didn't catch all the details, but that seems like a legit use, assuming the forfeiture money was gotten above board.
The problem with civil forfeiture is that it's treated as a revenue stream.
Much like treating tickets/fines as a revenue stream, this can lead to bad behavior and unfair targeting of those who can't fight back in order to get those sweet sweet dollars.
Now, if the Republicans were smart, they'd slide her through and then wait for a scandal to be made up to come to light, and then rip her apart. By bullshitting and denying her, it's another bit of ammo for Dems who can spin it as the racism and sexism it actually probably is.
Seriously though, civil forfeiture is pretty much the reason the 4th amendment was made in the first place and is terrible.
That's what I was thinking. How is this not straight forward 4th amendment abuse?
Paper thin probable cause is pretty much all they need to throw unreasonable search and seizure out the window.
I smelled marijuana in the car. We called in the K9 unit. It alerted to possible drugs because OF COURSE it did. Are you carrying any cash in the vehicle? You must be going to buy/sell drugs. We'll take all your things because they're being used in the suspected perpetration of a crime. Prove they're not.
5th or 6th has "nor deprived of ... property ... without due process of law", which is what I was referring to. The abuse of trained dogs to bypass the 4th is definitely a problem too though.
DaimarA Million Feet Tall of AwesomeRegistered Userregular
I think I saw a John Oliver piece on this, I guess cops asking if you have more than $5K or $10K in the car is becoming a standard question for some areas.
5th or 6th has "nor deprived of ... property ... without due process of law", which is what I was referring to. The abuse of trained dogs to bypass the 4th is definitely a problem too though.
Unfortunately civil forfeiture only requires a "preponderance of evidence" to assume guilt rather than belief "beyond reasonable doubt" that criminal forfeiture requires. "I smelled pot, and the drug dog went off" is enough to cover their asses, or carrying 20k in cash is enough for them to assume you're making a drug deal or laundering it. Additionally, the action is taken against the property itself, not against the person.
The legality of it is, in the shittiest technical sense of the word, "legitimate", but fucking repugnant. (At least, it's been upheld by the courts so far) Basically "I believe it's more likely this <object> is involved in criminal activity than not. It is therefore detained to prevent any possible crimes it may have been used to commit. If that's not the case, please provide proof to the contrary. We'll hold onto it in the meantime."
Don't want to give it up? Don't believe for a moment they won't find a reason (associated with their assumed crime, or trumped up and unrelated) to jail you, and your shit is seized in that case just the same. Or you can just give them the <money/jewelry/car/whatever> and not spend the night/weekend in jail.
Anyway, this is getting off topic, and probably belongs in the Policing thread. The fact that Lynch is into it is not reassuring. I'd rather an AG who was fully against the practice. It's a tool that is far far too easy to abuse.
5th or 6th has "nor deprived of ... property ... without due process of law", which is what I was referring to. The abuse of trained dogs to bypass the 4th is definitely a problem too though.
Unfortunately civil forfeiture only requires a "preponderance of evidence" to assume guilt rather than belief "beyond reasonable doubt" that criminal forfeiture requires. "I smelled pot, and the drug dog went off" is enough to cover their asses, or carrying 20k in cash is enough for them to assume you're making a drug deal or laundering it. Additionally, the action is taken against the property itself, not against the person.
The legality of it is, in the shittiest technical sense of the word, "legitimate", but fucking repugnant. (At least, it's been upheld by the courts so far) Basically "I believe it's more likely this <object> is involved in criminal activity than not. It is therefore detained to prevent any possible crimes it may have been used to commit. If that's not the case, please provide proof to the contrary. We'll hold onto it in the meantime."
Don't want to give it up? Don't believe for a moment they won't find a reason (associated with their assumed crime, or trumped up and unrelated) to jail you, and your shit is seized in that case just the same. Or you can just give them the <money/jewelry/car/whatever> and not spend the night/weekend in jail.
Anyway, this is getting off topic, and probably belongs in the Policing thread. The fact that Lynch is into it is not reassuring. I'd rather an AG who was fully against the practice. It's a tool that is far far too easy to abuse.
It is worse than that actually. In many cases due to the "War on Some Drugs(TM)", the laws have been loosened so much that the police just confiscate things under the razor thin legal standard of "probable cause", then the accused has to sue to get it back. Because the accused is now the plantiff, they now have to prove beyond a "preponderance of evidence" that they were not involved in anything illegal.
To make matters worse, the drugs laws are completely screwed up with things like federal and state laws disagreeing on what is illegal. This allows a state police officer in say Colorado to confiscate something because it is part of a pot related drug crime. Pot is legal in Colorado, and charges are never filed, but the preponderance of the evidence will still show that they were doing something that was illegal at a federal level.
It is somewhat related, because any AG nomination that is strongly in favor of the current civil forfiture laws is someone I would not want to have the position.
5th or 6th has "nor deprived of ... property ... without due process of law", which is what I was referring to. The abuse of trained dogs to bypass the 4th is definitely a problem too though.
Unfortunately civil forfeiture only requires a "preponderance of evidence" to assume guilt rather than belief "beyond reasonable doubt" that criminal forfeiture requires. "I smelled pot, and the drug dog went off" is enough to cover their asses, or carrying 20k in cash is enough for them to assume you're making a drug deal or laundering it. Additionally, the action is taken against the property itself, not against the person.
The legality of it is, in the shittiest technical sense of the word, "legitimate", but fucking repugnant. (At least, it's been upheld by the courts so far) Basically "I believe it's more likely this <object> is involved in criminal activity than not. It is therefore detained to prevent any possible crimes it may have been used to commit. If that's not the case, please provide proof to the contrary. We'll hold onto it in the meantime."
Don't want to give it up? Don't believe for a moment they won't find a reason (associated with their assumed crime, or trumped up and unrelated) to jail you, and your shit is seized in that case just the same. Or you can just give them the <money/jewelry/car/whatever> and not spend the night/weekend in jail.
Anyway, this is getting off topic, and probably belongs in the Policing thread. The fact that Lynch is into it is not reassuring. I'd rather an AG who was fully against the practice. It's a tool that is far far too easy to abuse.
It is worse than that actually. In many cases due to the "War on Some Drugs(TM)", the laws have been loosened so much that the police just confiscate things under the razor thin legal standard of "probable cause", then the accused has to sue to get it back. Because the accused is now the plantiff, they now have to prove beyond a "preponderance of evidence" that they were not involved in anything illegal.
To make matters worse, the drugs laws are completely screwed up with things like federal and state laws disagreeing on what is illegal. This allows a state police officer in say Colorado to confiscate something because it is part of a pot related drug crime. Pot is legal in Colorado, and charges are never filed, but the preponderance of the evidence will still show that they were doing something that was illegal at a federal level.
There are so many horror stories of how forfeiture is being abused..
I'm pretty circumspect about Lynch now, but I can't get access to the WSJ article that blog cites, so I have no idea where the forfeitures came from. Holder has been pretty good about thawing our country's fucked up view on recreational drugs, and I fear that progress will greatly regress if the new AG is someone who made bank off of forfeitures in drug cases, of which I'd wager comprise the vast majority of its use in the US.
After Lynch was nominated, Breitbart blew up about Lynch being one of the Clinton's Whitewater defense attorneys, as well as a campaign aid. Only problem with that is, that was a completely different Loretta Lynch. Breitbart then proceeded to leave the goddamn article up, but waaaay down at the bottom of the page, issue a correction that read:
Correction: The Loretta Lynch identified earlier as the Whitewater attorney was, in fact, a different attorney.
5th or 6th has "nor deprived of ... property ... without due process of law", which is what I was referring to. The abuse of trained dogs to bypass the 4th is definitely a problem too though.
Unfortunately civil forfeiture only requires a "preponderance of evidence" to assume guilt rather than belief "beyond reasonable doubt" that criminal forfeiture requires. "I smelled pot, and the drug dog went off" is enough to cover their asses, or carrying 20k in cash is enough for them to assume you're making a drug deal or laundering it. Additionally, the action is taken against the property itself, not against the person.
The legality of it is, in the shittiest technical sense of the word, "legitimate", but fucking repugnant. (At least, it's been upheld by the courts so far) Basically "I believe it's more likely this <object> is involved in criminal activity than not. It is therefore detained to prevent any possible crimes it may have been used to commit. If that's not the case, please provide proof to the contrary. We'll hold onto it in the meantime."
Don't want to give it up? Don't believe for a moment they won't find a reason (associated with their assumed crime, or trumped up and unrelated) to jail you, and your shit is seized in that case just the same. Or you can just give them the <money/jewelry/car/whatever> and not spend the night/weekend in jail.
Anyway, this is getting off topic, and probably belongs in the Policing thread. The fact that Lynch is into it is not reassuring. I'd rather an AG who was fully against the practice. It's a tool that is far far too easy to abuse.
Is she "into it" though? Is she actually "into it" in the way most of the people in this thread are implying?
The only information I've seen on this says that she has just been involved in a bunch of these cases. And, you know, as an attorney. There seems little indication she has any involvement in the shady aspects of the practice or that she supports those aspects of it.
Posts
There's a CR that needs to be done before the end of December though, I think.
It lets the GOP show their true colors. Doing it before would make it seem like Obama didn't even try and the media would absolutely love that.
fixed
"Do you think the two political parties should be more willing to compromise, even if it means they strike a deal you don't agree with?
My heavy pub district votes:
Yes: 61.16
No: 30.49
Undecided: 8.32
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
"Who specifically should be willing to compromise?"
Us: 3%
Them: 92%
Undecided: 5%
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
http://poorrichardsnews.com/post/102336560238/obamas-ag-nominee-has-seized-904-million-in-private
Yikes. I don't know a lot about her but she seems qualified and generally inoffensive enough, but civil forfeiture makes me very uncomfortable.
Civil asset forfeiture isn't always bad. It's often a powerful tool for large scale busts and such.
The problem with it is mostly in the way it's used by local police departments who get to keep some or all of the proceeds of that seizure.
The problem is the lack of process involved. People can have property seized and kept by the police for their use without even being convicted.
I think the greed-based incentives are even worse then that. Because that's what drives the police to do it so much these days.
It's pretty much always bad. It should be attached to a criminal conviction, come after said conviction, and still offer its own procedure. I have no problem with taking drug lord's stuff, but the reality is it is a good reason for bad cops to steal shit from random black people and get away with it. But even the feds, and even without individual incentive will still inevitably fuck it up, because whenever you're dealing with the property of (presumed) innocent people, well, it shouldn't be occuring.
No, that's overly simplistic. It's been used in fraud cases, in cases against organized crime and instances where they can show that the property itself is ill-gotten but for various reasons can't show who specifically committed the crime that got it. It's been used to recover assets from guys like Bernie Madoff to get them back to his victims. Even the recent scathing articles on the subject talk about the benefits of the idea.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Sometimes you get a benevolent dictator (you never actually get a benevolent dictator). The process can be bad even if the results are sometimes good.
This doesn't make any sense as it applies to the situation though.
The problem seems to be primarily the incentives created by giving the funds directly to the people seizing the assets (which just encourages corruption) and the way you get your assets back. And, as always with the police, a lack of oversight.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
BUT KEEP YER GUBBAHMEN OUTTER MY FORD TRUCK AND KILOS OF CRACK!
The problem with civil forfeiture is that it's treated as a revenue stream.
Much like treating tickets/fines as a revenue stream, this can lead to bad behavior and unfair targeting of those who can't fight back in order to get those sweet sweet dollars.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Haha.
Kilos.
That's what I was thinking. How is this not straight forward 4th amendment abuse?
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
Paper thin probable cause is pretty much all they need to throw unreasonable search and seizure out the window.
I smelled marijuana in the car. We called in the K9 unit. It alerted to possible drugs because OF COURSE it did. Are you carrying any cash in the vehicle? You must be going to buy/sell drugs. We'll take all your things because they're being used in the suspected perpetration of a crime. Prove they're not.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Found it:
Unfortunately civil forfeiture only requires a "preponderance of evidence" to assume guilt rather than belief "beyond reasonable doubt" that criminal forfeiture requires. "I smelled pot, and the drug dog went off" is enough to cover their asses, or carrying 20k in cash is enough for them to assume you're making a drug deal or laundering it. Additionally, the action is taken against the property itself, not against the person.
The legality of it is, in the shittiest technical sense of the word, "legitimate", but fucking repugnant. (At least, it's been upheld by the courts so far) Basically "I believe it's more likely this <object> is involved in criminal activity than not. It is therefore detained to prevent any possible crimes it may have been used to commit. If that's not the case, please provide proof to the contrary. We'll hold onto it in the meantime."
Don't want to give it up? Don't believe for a moment they won't find a reason (associated with their assumed crime, or trumped up and unrelated) to jail you, and your shit is seized in that case just the same. Or you can just give them the <money/jewelry/car/whatever> and not spend the night/weekend in jail.
Anyway, this is getting off topic, and probably belongs in the Policing thread. The fact that Lynch is into it is not reassuring. I'd rather an AG who was fully against the practice. It's a tool that is far far too easy to abuse.
It is worse than that actually. In many cases due to the "War on Some Drugs(TM)", the laws have been loosened so much that the police just confiscate things under the razor thin legal standard of "probable cause", then the accused has to sue to get it back. Because the accused is now the plantiff, they now have to prove beyond a "preponderance of evidence" that they were not involved in anything illegal.
To make matters worse, the drugs laws are completely screwed up with things like federal and state laws disagreeing on what is illegal. This allows a state police officer in say Colorado to confiscate something because it is part of a pot related drug crime. Pot is legal in Colorado, and charges are never filed, but the preponderance of the evidence will still show that they were doing something that was illegal at a federal level.
It is somewhat related, because any AG nomination that is strongly in favor of the current civil forfiture laws is someone I would not want to have the position.
There are so many horror stories of how forfeiture is being abused..
I'm pretty circumspect about Lynch now, but I can't get access to the WSJ article that blog cites, so I have no idea where the forfeitures came from. Holder has been pretty good about thawing our country's fucked up view on recreational drugs, and I fear that progress will greatly regress if the new AG is someone who made bank off of forfeitures in drug cases, of which I'd wager comprise the vast majority of its use in the US.
After Lynch was nominated, Breitbart blew up about Lynch being one of the Clinton's Whitewater defense attorneys, as well as a campaign aid. Only problem with that is, that was a completely different Loretta Lynch. Breitbart then proceeded to leave the goddamn article up, but waaaay down at the bottom of the page, issue a correction that read:
Stephen Colbert let them know that we all noticed.
The article is gone now.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
Is she "into it" though? Is she actually "into it" in the way most of the people in this thread are implying?
The only information I've seen on this says that she has just been involved in a bunch of these cases. And, you know, as an attorney. There seems little indication she has any involvement in the shady aspects of the practice or that she supports those aspects of it.