5 ms·

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

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 They either need a major overhaul, or to be repealed. If repealed, we should look at any valid, useful uses and make sure to account for them.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.

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.