You are quoting from the Dept of Justice website. The ones who benefit and dole out the money, the ones who support and push this. I’ll bet you’re not seeing anything about controversies on that website, are you? Just justifications. The limitations are coming from the states themselves, many of whom have put restrictions on this type of government theft.
Here’s a bit from Wikipedia:
So even if you have to return it, you might still get to keep the money, because the return could come from the taxpayers, not the seizures. This is obscene.
This is indeed obscene and unconstitutional. They just need to find the right set of facts.
I just can’t fathom that the victim here is not entitled to due process. What is the standard here? Suspicion of a crime only? This guy was transporting 5 bullets to sell? There simply must be due process or the police become the criminals here.
And I have no idea about this, but can you seize an asset that the bank has a lien on? If he simply stopped paying, doesn’t the bank’s lien have priority? All you can confiscate is what he has…not what he has plus $678 a month for X more years!!
Whoever said this should be on the news daily was right!!
The point was only to note the historical numbers of (national government) asset forfeiture actions and amounts, not to justify the actions. Or do you believe that the numbers are false for some reason, since they do not support your previous contention that the last administration significantly increased asset forfeiture activity?
I believe that they can use statistics to present things how they would like. and using their own statistics, going from 1.3 billion in 2008 to 1.9 billion in 2016 is an increase, but they say it’s actually flat because of inflation. Notice how they label the chart as “illegal cash assets forfeited”. Nowhere in their charts do they show how many people were never charged, how much money was returned to the owners, perhaps none of it was and returned monies were just paid by the taxpayers? Or perhaps they only include in their total deposit not the entirety of what was seized, but their profit after paying lawyers and reimbursing money.
No statistics whatsoever on this site about what was returned. Unless, of course, they are considering them “innocent victims”.
Why are we arguing about what the last administration did versus what this administration is doing? Asset forfeiture was wrong then and it is wrong now. It shouldn’t have been done then, and it shouldn’t be done now. People on both sides of the political spectrum were opposing it then, and are opposing it now. State and federal actors need to stop stealing from people who have not been convicted of any crime.
I think the reason for the comparison, Fang, is the timeline each has had. The last admin had 8 yrs to correct the problem- while the current one has had about 8 months.
Timeline matters to some. Some feel people should be punished today for sins of their great-great ancestors, some don’t.
I do agree with you, @“Cardinal Fang” , however the point was made purely to dispute that the last administration was working hard to fix it. I understand what the original intention was, so criminals could not profit, but it has turned into a government boondoggle at innocent victims expense.
I don’t care what the profits go to, if they fund the most worthy cause possible, it is purely government theft in the worse way.
The current AG seems to have his personal opinion on many things, so I don’t think it reflects anything but that. If this issue gets enough outrage and public attention, hopefully something will be done. At least a number of states have made restrictions at a statewide level.
The current attorney general is in a position to make policy with respect to asset forfeiture at the national government level.
However, many asset forfeitures occur at the state level, so whatever is done at the national level may not directly affect the asset forfeiture activity that is done at the state level.
Horrible. Once the flow of money is rolling, it is very hard to stop. I find it interesting that 7 states plus D.C. Prohibit the practice. They are rather dissimilar states: NM, ME, NC, MD, MO, WI and one other
Are you trying to show, greenwitch,(post 31) that that government has forcibly taken money and property away from citizens but not spent it wisely to benefit all citizens? Maybe the solution is taking even more money away from citizens so the government would have even more money available to then spend wisely? Or maybe not.
yes, greenwitch that’s what I said. The part you posted showed the government forcing assets away from citizens and then did not spend it wisely.
No point in arguing that it wasn’t six, it was half a dozen.