Asset seizure is a fucking blight. If a chunk of your budget comes from selling seized property, then you are going to prioritize seizing property. Especially when property can be fucking seized without a conviction.
I believe that is the "doc" I watched a while ago that had some interesting info about TN's asset forfeiture laws.
Even the narrator was saying that the cops are too happy with it. I assume several other states have aggressive asset forfeiture laws as well.
Watching that doc made me hurt just because they show someone going to jail for a few grams of weed, losing their car, the state (I think?) police saying "this will make a fine vehicle for us," and smiling directly to the camera about it saying we don't make the laws (paraphrasing as it's been a while since I saw the doc).
/it still makes me angry just thinking about it
Basically, asset seizure enables the state to go after someone without no known source of income flaunting millions of dollars in sports cars, mansions, etc. Even if the state has no idea _what_ the suspect doing, just that they've got millions of dollars and no explanation on where it came from.
Alas, this theoretically decent idea has been completely fucked up in it's execution. But the core idea of asset seizure, namely that obvious proceeds of a crime can be seized even when the crimes were committed in private.
Historically, I believe it was used against people who magically had gained a fortune overnight, without forcing every bank to go through their vaults and count the cash. Bootleggers, too.
Why should seizing assets be okay under those circumstances?
> In this modern world of ransomware, mail-order drug trade and other lucrative side jobs, invisible crime is easier and more prevalent than ever.
In this modern world of internet-connected financial institutions and big data, following large amounts of money through the system is easier and more prevalent than ever.
> Why should seizing assets be okay under those circumstances?
That one is a value judgement, and there is no right answer. Personally, I think the system should be biased to discourage crime, even if it's very unlikely you'll get caught. I know others place the value of freedom higher than the value of, well, fairness. I prefer a nation where crime doesn't pay, or if it does, you lose the spoils.
the United States had by far the highest reported rate of incarceration in the world. Today, adult incarceration rates of the Western European democracies average around 100 per 100,000, and in the common law countries of Australia and Canada, the rates are only slightly higher. The U.S. rate in 2012 was seven times higher, at 707 per 100,000.[1]
For this to be possible the US must have been incarcerating more people, for longer, than other countries, which by your logic would reduce the rate of crime.
I was under the impression it was widely accepted that increased severity of punishment had only a small effect on rates of crime. The report I've referenced seems to agree.
1. Refer page 335 here http://johnjay.jjay.cuny.edu/nrc/NAS_report_on_incarceration...
I found that PDF here https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/ethics-in-question/2...