Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
From fail blog: Tulsa Police acquisition win?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dave70968" data-source="post: 1503330" data-attributes="member: 13624"><p>forindooruseonly nails it. It's not about the forfeiture <em>per se</em>, it's about the process. I don't have a problem with the concept of criminal forfeiture--that is, the person is accused, tried, convicted, and his stuff taken as part of the punishment. What we're talking about here is called civil forfeiture: the stuff is seized, the <em>property</em> is charged with a crime (or charged with being the product of or involved with a crime), and it is incumbent upon the legitimate owner to prove the his/the property's innocence. <em>That</em> is an outright subversion of the intent of the Constitution, and is morally wrong.</p><p></p><p>If you want to take a criminal's stuff, fine--just prove that he's a criminal first. If you want to see where civil forfeiture can go wrong, look at Tenaha, TX, currently the subject of a class-action lawsuit over more than $3 million in civil forfeitures.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dave70968, post: 1503330, member: 13624"] forindooruseonly nails it. It's not about the forfeiture [I]per se[/I], it's about the process. I don't have a problem with the concept of criminal forfeiture--that is, the person is accused, tried, convicted, and his stuff taken as part of the punishment. What we're talking about here is called civil forfeiture: the stuff is seized, the [I]property[/I] is charged with a crime (or charged with being the product of or involved with a crime), and it is incumbent upon the legitimate owner to prove the his/the property's innocence. [I]That[/I] is an outright subversion of the intent of the Constitution, and is morally wrong. If you want to take a criminal's stuff, fine--just prove that he's a criminal first. If you want to see where civil forfeiture can go wrong, look at Tenaha, TX, currently the subject of a class-action lawsuit over more than $3 million in civil forfeitures. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
From fail blog: Tulsa Police acquisition win?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom