6 ms·

• In 2008, for the first time in history, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Assets Forfeiture Fund (AFF) held more than $1 billion in net assets—that is, money f

• In 2008, for the first time in history, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Assets Forfeiture Fund (AFF) held more than $1 billion in net assets—that is, money forfeited from property owners and now available for federal law enforcement activities after deducting various expenses. A similar fund at the U.S. Treasury Department held more than $400 million in net assets in 2008. By contrast, in 1986, the year after the AFF was created, it took in just $93.7 million in deposits. "• State data reveal that state and local law enforcement also use forfeiture extensively: From 2001 to 2002, currency forfeitures alone in just nine states totaled more than $70 million. This measure excludes cars and other forfeited property, as well as forfeitures from many states that did not make data available for those years, and so likely represents just the tip of the forfeiture iceberg. • Equitable sharing payments to states have nearly doubled from 2000 to 2008, from a little more than $200 million to $400 million. Source: Williams, Marian R.; Holcomb, Jefferson H.; Kovandzic, Tomislav V; and Bullock, Scott, "Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture," The Institute for Justice (Arlington, VA: March 2010), p. 7. http://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/other_pubs/assetforfeituretoemail.pdf http://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/other_pubs/assetforfeitu... _______________________________ I'm not saying that there are not legitimate reasons to seize assets during criminal investigations, or in clear cases of contraband. The problem is clearly that LE agencies are heavily incentivized to purse civil forfeiture as a means, in best case, to bolster budgets and support - in Generous Forfeiture states, public school budgets etc, and worst case, as slush funds. See Maricopa Country Sherriff's office. And Local PDs and Sheriff's depts nationwide. The legality of these seizures needs a comprehensive overhaul. For every Madoff or HSBC or shipping container filled with coke or knockoff prada bags, there are a thousand people like the family in the OP.

kbenson 10y ago
> I'm not saying that there are not legitimate reasons to seize assets during criminal investigations, or in clear cases of contraband. Then you aren't disagreeing with the spirit of anything I've said. > The legality of these seizures needs a comprehensive overhaul. I've said as much multiple times in this thread, which I started by saying exactly this. I'm merely suggesting a rational look at the pros and cons and not to jump to the conclusion that there's no benefits of the law as it currently stands. It's obvious it needs overhaul though.
- simplemath 10y ago
  And I started by saying that in lieu of an overhaul, it would be better for society as a whole that civil forfeiture be outlawed entirely. It's an abomination.
- simplemath 10y ago
  Also, how can you explain the steady linear growth of forfeiture assets in the face of declining crime rates? You've been talking out of the side of your mouth up and down this thread.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    > Also, how can you explain the steady linear growth of forfeiture assets in the face of declining crime rates? I can't. But I'm not saying it's not a problem, or that it hasn't been growing, just that I wasn't aware of the value of seizures that victimize people exceeding that of seizures that don't. I never refuted your claim, just pointed out a problem in the source of it that makes the specific number ambiguous for that claim. it's still entirely possible you are correct. It may even be likely. > And I started by saying that in lieu of an overhaul, it would be better for society as a whole that civil forfeiture be outlawed entirely. And you ended with "The legality of these seizures needs a comprehensive overhaul." > You've been talking out of the side of your mouth up and down this thread. I have tried to be very clear on my position, from the very first comment. CF are a major problem. They either need a major overhaul, or to be repealed. If repealed, we should look at any valid, useful uses and make sure to account for them. As such, careful consideration of CF is more useful than a simple stance of "CF is bad. Abolish it." Do you see any statements from me that do not follow this? I've assumed you've been carrying on your side of the conversation in good faith. I would hope you could extend me the same courtesy.
    - simplemath 10y ago
      I inferred some equivocation which led me to believe that you find the institution of CF acceptable, despite the abundance of abuse. That the good outweighs the bad, or that seizures themselves are generally acceptable, and not an outright insult to the zombie corpse of the long dead 4A. I'll admit though that this is my issue, not yours (perceiving your intent negatively). This has been a good discussion, and I should abstain from inference and address you on content alone. For that, I apologize. As far as how we should proceed institutionally with altering CF to be more in line with the spirit of the rule of law - I'm a cynic, and a pragmatist. If we're extremely lucky, we'll get a federal redress of CF and how it can be applied. Clamoring for it to be thrown out is an outright fantasy. I don't think we'll get either.

kbenson 10y ago

> I'm not saying that there are not legitimate reasons to seize assets during criminal investigations, or in clear cases of contraband. Then you aren't disagreeing with the spirit of anything I've said. > The legality of these seizures needs a comprehensive overhaul. I've said as much multiple times in this thread, which I started by saying exactly this. I'm merely suggesting a rational look at the pros and cons and not to jump to the conclusion that there's no benefits of the law as it currently stands. It's obvious it needs overhaul though.

simplemath 10y ago
And I started by saying that in lieu of an overhaul, it would be better for society as a whole that civil forfeiture be outlawed entirely. It's an abomination.
simplemath 10y ago
Also, how can you explain the steady linear growth of forfeiture assets in the face of declining crime rates? You've been talking out of the side of your mouth up and down this thread.
- kbenson 10y ago
  > Also, how can you explain the steady linear growth of forfeiture assets in the face of declining crime rates? I can't. But I'm not saying it's not a problem, or that it hasn't been growing, just that I wasn't aware of the value of seizures that victimize people exceeding that of seizures that don't. I never refuted your claim, just pointed out a problem in the source of it that makes the specific number ambiguous for that claim. it's still entirely possible you are correct. It may even be likely. > And I started by saying that in lieu of an overhaul, it would be better for society as a whole that civil forfeiture be outlawed entirely. And you ended with "The legality of these seizures needs a comprehensive overhaul." > You've been talking out of the side of your mouth up and down this thread. I have tried to be very clear on my position, from the very first comment. CF are a major problem. They either need a major overhaul, or to be repealed. If repealed, we should look at any valid, useful uses and make sure to account for them. As such, careful consideration of CF is more useful than a simple stance of "CF is bad. Abolish it." Do you see any statements from me that do not follow this? I've assumed you've been carrying on your side of the conversation in good faith. I would hope you could extend me the same courtesy.
  - simplemath 10y ago
    I inferred some equivocation which led me to believe that you find the institution of CF acceptable, despite the abundance of abuse. That the good outweighs the bad, or that seizures themselves are generally acceptable, and not an outright insult to the zombie corpse of the long dead 4A. I'll admit though that this is my issue, not yours (perceiving your intent negatively). This has been a good discussion, and I should abstain from inference and address you on content alone. For that, I apologize. As far as how we should proceed institutionally with altering CF to be more in line with the spirit of the rule of law - I'm a cynic, and a pragmatist. If we're extremely lucky, we'll get a federal redress of CF and how it can be applied. Clamoring for it to be thrown out is an outright fantasy. I don't think we'll get either.