Should criminals be allowed to profit from their crimes? Of course not. I think everyone would agree with that.
But that, then, is a "criminal"? Well, for most intents and purposes, we deem someone a criminal whose been found guilty of a crime, by due process, in a court of law.
But in the Fun and Profitable World of Civil Forfeiture, law enforcement can say, "Hmmm. We suspect you're a criminal, even though you haven't been convicted, or even charged with a crime. So … this car that you clearly bought with the proceeds of your crime now belongs to us. And we're going to sell it and keep the money for the department. Unless you can prove yourself innocent in court."
Yes, the cops can take stuff from you, and then you have to prove (usually through an arcane and lengthy process) that maybe they shouldn't have. And police departments have found this to be a substantial part of their funding, as cities tighten budgets, so they have an incentive to push it to the limit, or beyond. It's more than a bit bass-ackward, but it's a practice that's been used, and abused, for decades.
There's been a backlash from the Left and the Right against it in recent years, though, as the list of clear abuses of the system has grown longer. A number of states have limited the practice, or eliminated it, or allow forfeiture only with conviction. In a number of those cases, local law enforcement have turned to the feds, letting them "adopt" forfeiture cases ("Hmmm, looks like we suspect you of a federal crime"), from which both sides would then get a cut.
The Obama Administration put their own restrictions on this sort of "adoptive forfeiture" abuse. Guess what Jeff Sessions plans to bring back.
❝ “We hope to issue this week a new directive on asset forfeiture — especially for drug traffickers,” Sessions said in his prepared remarks for a speech to the National District Attorney's Association in Minneapolis. "With care and professionalism, we plan to develop policies to increase forfeitures. No criminal should be allowed to keep the proceeds of their crime. Adoptive forfeitures are appropriate as is sharing with our partners." ❞
What could possibly go wrong?
More here: http://reason.com/blog/2017/07/17/sessions-announces-justice-department-wi
Jeff Sessions wants police to take more cash from American citizens
His predecessor, Eric Holder, had curtailed the practice.
This fellow seems the archetype of a 'good ol' boy' villain from a 1970s screenplay.
This is so wrong! Giving power to individual policeman to take anything they want based on mere 'suspicion' would create the worse kind of police state.
+su ann lim It's largely already here, the only restraint being public outrage over it. Not surprisingly, the most frequent victims are the poor and the folk passing through (it's sort of the modern equivalent of a speed trap for some small towns — "Hmmm, you seem to be carrying a lot of money, and we know drug dealers drive through our town a lot, so we're going to keep this, and if you want to challenge it, you'll need to come back to Middle-o-Nowhere, Texas, to do so"). It's a steady amount of predation, but as long as it doesn't impact anyone too important, most folk either don't know or don't care.
+Dave Hill I had no idea! I thought "guilty until proven innocent' was still an American value. Now I'm beginning to understand whats contributing towards the extreme anti-police views…
❝ “We hope to issue this week a new directive on asset forfeiture — especially for drug traffickers,” Sessions said in his prepared remarks for a speech to the National District Attorney's Association in Minneapolis. ❞
So, when can we expect the heads of pharmaceutical companies, the drug trafficking CIA, the pill pushing doctors, etc… to start having their assets seized?
God, Jeff Sessions is awesome!
+Travis Bird "Buford T. Sessions"?
Writing tickets instead of killing people would bring more money ;p
I had been wondering about Jeff. I mean, sure he was a racist and a vote suppressor, but one doesn’t get onto Trump’s cabinet just because of stuff like that. There always has to be some sort of rapacious form of capitalism involved, some damaging sort of corporate overreach so that some oligarch or other can plunder the country. Then I learned about Session’s investments in private prisons, and suddenly it all made sense. One imagines he also has investments in the sort of police equipment suppliers that would most benefit from using property seizures as a form of added funding.
The Rump is making huge bank, so the answer is yes, criminal are profiting.