Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Between 1989 and 2010, U.S. attorneys seized an estimated $12.6 billion in asset forfeiture cases. The growth rate during that time averaged +19.4% annually.
In 2010 alone, the value of assets seized grew by +52.8% from 2009 and was six times greater than the total for 1989.
Then by 2014, that number had ballooned to roughly $4.5 billion for the year, making this 35% of the entire number of assets collected from 1989 to 2010 in a single year.
Now, according to the FBI, the total amount of goods stolen by criminals in 2014 burglary offenses suffered an estimated $3.9 billion in property losses. This means that the police are now taking more assets than the criminals
I'm not sure what point the OP is trying to make. The bottom line is criminals will have their assets seized by the government. If the threat of incarceration doesn't deter crime, then the threat of taking criminals money is supposed to deter it.
I'm not sure what point the OP is trying to make. The bottom line is criminals will have their assets seized by the government. If the threat of incarceration doesn't deter crime, then the threat of taking criminals money is supposed to deter it.
The government isn't just taking from criminal kingpins.
The forfeiture and seizure regime has gone WAAAAAY off the rails.
I'm not sure what point the OP is trying to make. The bottom line is criminals will have their assets seized by the government. If the threat of incarceration doesn't deter crime, then the threat of taking criminals money is supposed to deter it.
Your property is guilty until you prove it innocent.
I'm not sure what point the OP is trying to make. The bottom line is criminals will have their assets seized by the government. If the threat of incarceration doesn't deter crime, then the threat of taking criminals money is supposed to deter it.
And innocent people will have their assets seized by LE too. It happens quite often. So what is that supposed to deter? Having money while innocent?
Created in the early days of the nation's war on drugs, asset forfeiture was designed to grab the proceeds from drug kingpins. But most of the money now is grabbed from ordinary citizens. According to a study last year, about 80 percent of the time, seized property is taken from people who have never been charged with anything.
And here are some cases where LE used the stolen money for their own personal benefit;
An assistant district attorney in the state of Oklahoma lived rent-free in a house confiscated by local law enforcement under the practice of asset forfeiture. His office paid the utility bills. He remained there for five years, despite a court order to sell the house at auction.
Another district attorney used $5,000 worth of confiscated funds to pay back his student loans.
These are just a few of the gems unearthed during a recent hearing on Oklahoma authorities’ liberal use of asset forfeiture to take property from suspected criminals and spend it on personal enrichment. OklahomaWatch.org reports:
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
