Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-20-2019, 02:51 PM
 
13,531 posts, read 17,086,186 times
Reputation: 9717

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Asset forfeiture is a good thing.

Criminals should be funding the criminal justice system, not tax-payers.

If criminals funded the criminal justice system, that would free up tax-payer money to be used elsewhere, like education.

Court costs are different than fines, so what needs to be done here is present the criminals with a bill for services rendered.

Paramedics called to a crime scene like a murder, rape, robbery or assault have an hourly rate, and the ambulance has an hourly rate for use, and the police and investigators have an hourly rate for the time they spend securing the crime scene and investigating, and prosecutors and paralegals have an hourly rate and you can charge the criminals for room and board.

You can also bill the criminals for the judge's hourly rate, and the judge's clerk and stenographer and bailiffs, and for use of the court room.

I say screw the "innocent spouse rule" and start seizing everything in payment for services rendered.

I would offer an opt-out.

If the defendant pleads guilty, then no seizure, but if they insist on a trial, then bill them for everything.
Yeah, nothing oppressive or over-reaching about that. Go try it out back in Eastern Europe.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-20-2019, 03:54 PM
 
Location: Minnysoda
10,659 posts, read 10,760,960 times
Reputation: 6745
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
It most likely would if that is happening. It's a really good ruling. Being 9-0 they were pretty clear.


it happens....and I agree good ruling
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2019, 06:25 PM
 
30,334 posts, read 11,962,967 times
Reputation: 18786
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Asset forfeiture is a good thing.

No its not. Its unconstitutional when its excessive. There are already laws on the books and fines that can be assessed for various crimes. This court ruling was the right thing. And from what I understand there will be a lot of court cases with people suing to get their illegally confiscated assets back.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2019, 06:28 PM
 
20,955 posts, read 8,730,947 times
Reputation: 14051
The SCOTUS got this one right. These local yokels who make the big bucks from the citizens misery have got to be funded with TAXES....or, if the public wants the forces shaved down in size, do that.

But they have gone way too far...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2019, 10:38 AM
 
28,122 posts, read 12,702,886 times
Reputation: 15343
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottomobeale View Post
EXCELLENT.

Policing for profit was always a horrible idea.

It is interesting how it evolved from "taking the money from drug lords" to taking money from whomever was convenient.
Lets see if this actually changes anything first...I have my doubts on that, seizures are a HUGE deal for many police depts, especially relating to the drug war, they are not just going to give all that up without a fight.


Besides that, they were never taking money or property from the drug lords, it was always from the end users and low level dealers, I knew one such person, they had their house and car seized by the local drug strike force, they auctioned both off and kept the profits, even though the bank really owned these things, they had a mortgage and car payment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2019, 10:56 AM
 
47,060 posts, read 26,162,597 times
Reputation: 29544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713 View Post
It will be interesting to see this applied to state laws designed to harass and terrorize Christian merchants by requiring them to make products that are contrary to their long-held religious beliefs and practices, or else be given fines well into six figures that appear to be designed to push these merchants into a state of financial ruin, if possible.

Surely these laws are going to be challenged under this ruling and rightfully so.
WTF did I just read?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2019, 10:58 AM
 
47,060 posts, read 26,162,597 times
Reputation: 29544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
I would offer an opt-out.

If the defendant pleads guilty, then no seizure, but if they insist on a trial, then bill them for everything.
This entire "Constitution" thing really was just a huge waste of vellum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2019, 01:54 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,620 posts, read 19,241,022 times
Reputation: 21745
Quote:
Originally Posted by dman72 View Post
Yeah, nothing oppressive or over-reaching about that. Go try it out back in Eastern Europe.
Well, then obey the law and you won't have a problem.

It's not rocket science. Committing a crime is a personal choice and I shouldn't get stuck with the bill just because people make the wrong choices.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2019, 02:08 PM
 
Location: Flyover Country
26,211 posts, read 19,588,945 times
Reputation: 21679
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713 View Post
It will be interesting to see this applied to state laws designed to harass and terrorize Christian merchants by requiring them to make products that are contrary to their long-held religious beliefs and practices, or else be given fines well into six figures that appear to be designed to push these merchants into a state of financial ruin, if possible.

Surely these laws are going to be challenged under this ruling and rightfully so.
What on earth are you talking about?

Damn, this is christian persecution complex taken to a new level.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2019, 02:31 PM
 
Location: in a pond with the other human scum
2,361 posts, read 2,547,366 times
Reputation: 2808
Quote:
Originally Posted by phma View Post
Unanimous decision suggest there is no political influence on the decision. Its nice to see the leftist members of the court acting like textualist and applying the constitution like textualist.
It's also nice to see the conservative members of the court taking a significant bite out of the right's long-fought war on drugs, which has been the excuse for the overwhelming majority of asset forfeitures.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top