5 ms·
New Mexico outlaws civil asset forfeiture
- Osiris 11y agoLink to the bill: http://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/15%20Regular/final/HB0560.pdf http://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/15%20Regular/final/HB0560.pd... Here are the relevant details: A. A person's property is subject to forfeiture if: (1) the person was arrested for an offense to which forfeiture applies; (2) the person is convicted by a criminal court of the offense; and (3) the state establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the property is subject to forfeiture as provided in Subsection B of this section. B. Following a person's conviction for an offense to which forfeiture applies, a court may order the person to forfeit: (1) property the person acquired through commission of the offense; (2) property directly traceable to property acquired through the commission of the offense; and (3) any instrumentality the person used in the commission of the offense.
- jabo 11y agoRelevant John Oliver segment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks
- venomsnake 11y agoJust entered to comment how much impact a spotlight from a single comedian could have. We should call it the cosby effect.
- glibgil 11y agoI don't think Bill Cosby ever convinced anyone to pull their sagging pants up and besides, he might be a rapist.
- anon4 11y agoJohn Oliver also might be a rapist, or maybe a murderer, or both. The allegations against Cosby didn't come out until much later in his career, compared to Oliver today. Also, even if he hasn't raped anyone yet, that doesn't mean he doesn't want to and that he won't do it in the future, which would retroactively make him a rapist -- once you've committed a rape, it applies to everything you've done in the past and everything you'll do in the future. What I'm saying is, if you want to discount everything Cosby has done based on a rape allegation, you ought to keep in mind, that the potential for it exists for Oliver too. The only conclusion that springs to mind, if you discount the possibility of Oliver being a rapist, is that you're subconsciously racist. Even if you're unaware of it, you're thinking something like "Oliver is a nice white man, so he'll never rape anyone, but that nigger definitely drugged and raped those women".
- mg1982 11y agoThread: New Mexico outlaws civil asset forfeiture Comment: "Oliver is a nice white man, so he'll never rape anyone, but that nigger definitely drugged and raped those women" Me: Wow - that degenerated quickly. Also, if I saw that quote in isolation it would take me about a million years to guess the thread it came from.
- venomsnake 11y agoIt was needed one comic to not shut up about Cosby being rapist for the whole issue to cause his downfall. That is why it is the Cosby effect. The same as Streisand effect is named after Barbara.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 11y agoDo you have any evidence that he's a rapist? I know he hasn't been convicted, so I would hope you at least have something more than an unfounded accusation.
- pessimizer 11y agoThere's been an update since the joke: Over a dozen women have openly accused Bill Cosby of being a rapist. I know it has been widely reported, so I would hope that you aren't reducing the statements of those women to "an unfounded accusation."
- venomsnake 11y agoIt is a classical case of he said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said ... don't we hate when it happens like that.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 11y agoActually, that's the technical definition of "unfounded accusation". I don't have to reduce, that's what it is.
- glibgil 11y agoSorry, I only have dozens of unfounded accusations that say he might be a rapist. Do I need something more substantial to say that he might be?
- venomsnake 11y ago20+ women, all telling eerily similar stories spanning across 4 decades ... it is enough to extinguish reasonable doubt for me.
- tanderson92 11y agoIt has happened with major pieces of legislation a few times at least; another high-profile comedian well-acknowledged to have turned the tide of public discourse is Jon Stewart. His work on the daily show single-handedly ensured that the Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act was passed a few years back.
- mg1982 11y agoSingle-handedly is a bit much (and kind of an insult to every one else involved in passing the Zadroga Act). Stewart would be among the first people to tell you that, i think.
- tanderson92 11y agoIt's more true in this case than anything Jon Oliver may have done (who indeed tapped into a wider, already-existing movement to end civil as was mentioned elsewhere on this thread). The Zadroga Act was severely at risk of not getting passed; it was dangerously close to the end of the congressional session and the Republicans had filibustered it. Following Stewart's focus on the bill several notable republicans came out in harsh criticism of the filibuster. To quote Robert Gibbs after the fact: "[he was] still holding out hope for passage with Stewart's help." Add to that the general acknowledgement that he was instrumental, I don't think it's a stretch. Certainly not an insult, I'm only talking about final passage of the bill, when the Republicans had it hopelessly filibustered at the end of a session. As for what Stewart would say, I guess he would say that his show follows one about muppets because he wants to make sure people don't mistake his comedy for general political activism. But it's a mistake to conclude from that that he doesn't have significant weight when he chooses to get involved. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-house-lauds-jon-stewart-for-pushing-passage-of-9-11-health-bill/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-house-lauds-jon-stewart-fo...
- benihana 11y ago>his show follows one about muppets because he wants to make sure people don't mistake his comedy for general political activism. That always bothered the shit out of me. He refused to accept responsibility for the influence of his message as he made fun of Fox News and right wing politicians for doing the same thing every night. He used the "I come on after puppets making crank phone calls" as an excuse to not have journalistic integrity. He was often accused of being one sided and basically a funny talking head for progressive politics and his answer was always "this is a comedy show. We should be mad at shows where people actually get their news"
- fit2rule 11y agoI think you're attributing cause where none exists. The writers for these shows know what bills are up before the legislature and they time their broadcast accordingly, in order to perpetuate the notion of their participation in the zeitgeist. While I don't doubt that Oliver brought attention to the issue - it was more than likely in the pipeline for months before hand, which is why his writers put it on the 'current issues' stack.
- WalterBright 11y agoThank you, New Mexico!
- whoopdedo 11y agoThe concern I have with civil asset forfeiture is that the seized property goes directly to the sheriff. This gives the police a financial incentive to seize assets. Law enforcement is not an activity that should be conducted with a profit motive. Even with limitations on what can be taken and when, I'd be more comfortable if it went into the state's general fund, or better a fund for recompensating victims of crime or accidents.
- cmdkeen 11y agoIt's pretty similar to all these tiny city jurisdictions which finance significant portions of their revenue via fines, especially those that cover a couple of miles of major roads.
- thaumasiotes 11y agorelated: http://www.loweringthebar.net/2014/03/hampton-fl.html http://www.loweringthebar.net/2014/03/hampton-fl.html From the link (which you should check out): > Hampton[, Florida] has existed, for whatever reason, since about 1925. Home to fewer than 500 people, it is located east of Highway 301 in north-central Florida. Some would say, actually, that it is located on Highway 301, as a result of an amendment to the town's borders in the mid-1990s. See if you can spot the amendment on the map below: I kind of wonder how this practice squares with the famous ideal of "no taxation without representation". What we have here is a town of <500 people who voted themselves the power to levy taxes on unrelated drivers passing not even through, but nearby. The drivers, obviously, were not consulted. Why is the town supposed to have this power in the first place?
- a3n 11y ago> I kind of wonder how this practice squares with the famous ideal of "no taxation without representation". Any restriction will be worked around. In general, these rackets allow municipalities to avoid raising taxes, or even bothering to ask, and it allows politicians to crow about not raising taxes, yet still have the revenue that honestly and openly enacted taxes would bring.
- pluma 11y agoNew Mexico has banned civil asset forfeiture and the death penalty and has legalized same-sex marriage. Good to see at least some US states behave like they're in a first-world country.
- blakeja 11y agoNot everyone agrees with your definition.
- Igglyboo 11y agoI'd say most people in the west do.
- blakeja 11y agoPolitically correct thoughtcrime / dissent = Downvote, I like it.
- pluma 11y agoDisagree about what? Civil asset forfeiture is incompatible with the definition of "state of law" (it's what you'd expect in some totalitarian banana republic, really). Not allowing for same-sex marriage can not really be justified except for religious reasons. And if a nation claims to maintain a separation of church and state, religious reasons can not dictate law. The death penalty is ineffective as a deterrent. The way it is practised in the US (in effect, the way it has to be practised to maintain any claim of being a civilised society) is extremely costly to the tax payer. Assuming that killing innocent citizens is the amongst the worst things a government can do, the death penalty also can't be morally justified in anything other than a nearly perfect justice system (which the American justice system evidently is not). Which point exactly are you disagreeing with?
- pc2g4d 11y ago> if a nation claims to maintain a separation of church and state, religious reasons can not dictate law. But religious people can exercise their right to give input in the formulation of law---the same right all citizens share regardless of the philosophy that guides them to favor one position over another. After all, arbitrarily excluding religious viewpoints from public discourse would be discriminatory, would it not?
- anonbanker 11y agoAnd now I know where to store my assets. Thanks, HN!