Cops still take more stuff from people than burglars do (2021)
thewhyaxis.substack.com
thewhyaxis.substack.com
I've read articles about how some police departments are training their staff to engage in this behavior and using forfeiture as a profit center. What they are doing is wholesale theft.
It doesn't go into a budget. It doesn't fund anything else. Anything collected goes to victims or it goes back to the people.
This would stop ALL of the perverse incentives.
That would help a ton though.
The idea is that let us say the normal price of electricity would be e.g. 10c / kwH. To incentivize people to use less electricity we charge 20c/ but the extra 10c go to the fund which at the end of the year is split evenly between all electricity consumers.
So basically everyone pays 20c x consumption -10c x (average consumption).
This is more difficult if 100% of it goes out the door. Hypothetically you could still get ecosystem issues, though. Where an org argues for more fines so that their existence is justified and that they don't shrink. etc.
we're discussing the incentives that lead to police becoming thieves. Which is just as important as the police being thieves. Assuming you want to fix the root cause, at least.
You don't think as long as they have incentive to fine more as it directly influences their budget, that it might affect their actions towards fining and seizing citizens? Are you saying it's unrelated?
edit: To word it differently, do you think solving this one problem will end their association with your money and their budget?
We have fundamental concepts like equal representation and equal treatment under the law that clearly show CAF to be wrong.
I'm really tired of seeing internet commentary on "tough on crime" attitudes where people think victims are basically judge and jury, possibly omniscient, and their hurt and revenge fantasies should decide policy for millions of unrelated people, supersedes the needs of everybody else, like our need to have an impartial justice system and prevent wrongful conviction.
But getting back to your comment, if you want to know where the "perverse incentive" is in your proposal, it creates incentive for someone to falsely present themselves as a victim of a crime.
No time limit nonsense, get a warrant. Charge them with a crime. That's the law no matter what the idiots running courthouses in this country think, your precedent has no power here.
Then look at Capitalism. Exploiting labor to drain any opportunity of wealth building from the working class and transferring it to those with wealth.
People have this twisted idea that America is a moral or ethical place. It's not. We live in a toxic culture and it has always been and it will continue to be. There is no escape.
It's not like I have a suitcase of money in my trunk and I've been pulled over by the police without cause and I can refuse to give consent.
Therefore I don't think the 4 amendment applies.
Isn't the argument for CAF that the mere possession of the large sum of money is just cause to confiscate it? That's why a time limit would work. DUring that time period, they could try to get a warrant. The judge would not give a warrant if that is the only evidence. Then the assets would be returned.
If I sign up for an account on Facebook, then I agree to waive my first-amendment rights.
If I walk into any number of stores or churches or government buildings, I agree to waive my second-amendment rights.
Sixth amendment? Just keep redefining "speedy" and make enough excuses for trials delayed and justice denied.
Tenth Amendment? If a state passes a law judged odious by the Federal Government, then kiss your funding sources bye-bye!
The constitution protects private dictators from interference by the government, not citizens from interference by private dictators. It’s an important distinction to remember in the USA
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You can say anything you want "in the public square" or "with a free press".
For example, go to the public library, or a government building, and they will have a little patch of land designated as the "Free Speech Z0ne" where Jehovah's witnesses and PETA fanatics camp out and hold up signs and vie for your attention.
You can go on Facebook and say stuff, but that's not "First Amendment Free Speech", that's a "private platform" and Facebook's standards control your speech there, not the First Amendment.
I am sorry but you will never convince me that private companies should have more power than the government. It's such an idiotic premise on so many levels and it blows my mind that people like you still come around with that bullshit xkcd comic as if it means anything or is a sound argument for censorship.
Again your 2nd amendments can not supercede my right to keep gunners off my property. It's my property not yours. You can walk around all day with your 50 cal rifle on your property and (lots of ) public land, depending on the state
I could go on...
Relevant XKCD: https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png
You can consent to searches all you want without giving up your rights to not have your stuff taken.
But. You naively assume judicial philosophy must be bound by rules, logic, common sense, ethics, public interest, or precedent.
Strike: ~~The Bill of Rights applies to people, not property. To rationalize civil forfeiture, the reactionaries created a legal fiction that property has agency unto itself. Further, property can be suspected of wrong doing, even by just by existing.~~
Edit: To rationalize civil forfeiture, the reactionaries claims the Bill of Rights applies to people, not property. Further, they created a legal fiction that property has agency unto itself. So property can be suspected of wrong doing, even by just by existing.
Worse, the rules for civil forfeiture are flipped. Whereas people charged in criminal court are presumed innocent until proven guilty, somehow property must be proven innocent. Apparently courts can prove a negative, even if logic cannot.
IANAL. Trying to grok the judicial philosophies of the r/iamverysmart reactionaries breaks my brain. These helped me kinda grasp what's happening:
Bennis v. Michigan
"On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) talk about civil forfeiture, the practice that lets police seize private property if it’s suspected of being involved in a crime."
https://www.fivefourpod.com/episodes/bennis-v-michigan/
Civil versus criminal forfeiture
"...assets are seized by police based on a suspicion of wrongdoing, and without having to charge a person with specific wrongdoing, with the case being between police and the thing itself, sometimes referred to by the Latin term in rem, meaning "against the property"; the property itself is the defendant and no criminal charge against the owner is needed."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...
The 4th ammendment gives individuals the protection from unreasonable siezure of property.
For this to make sense, civil forfeiture and in rem proceedings against property would have to postdate the Fourth Amendment and be a reaction to it, but they don’t.
No criminal charge against the owner is required because criminal punishment isn’t sought, not because it is an in rem proceeding. Its not an end run around either Fourth Amendment search and seizure protection or Fifth Amendment due process, both of which apply. As does the Eight Amendment Excessive Fines clause.
> No criminal charge against the owner is required because criminal punishment isn’t sought...
Are you saying these "Robin Hood" style civil forfeitures are simply not legal (constitutional)? Vs some kind of cunning legal hack?
No, I'm saying criminal charges are only required for criminal types of sanctions, and what civil forfeiture does isn't in that scope.
That's not to say I think its fine: I think its often bad for policy reasons, and the details of some of the current uses (especially state/local seizures under federal law) have particular constitutional and policy issues.
Also while I am ensured of this right by the constitution, the passage "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects..." affirms that these rights are not granted but instead fundamental. Like the first amendment and others this is one of the "certain unalienable rights" granted by our creators.
Unfortunately, unreasonable is subject to interpretation. I'm not saying it's right, but some could plausibly interpret civil forfeiture as "reasonable."
The government suspects someone of committing a crime? File charges and bring them to court.
At the very least, CAF should require a warrant. Cops should not be able to seize assets as part of a typical traffic stop.
I just can't see how CAF has survived so long without being ruled a violation of our Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The police exist to maintain and protect existing power structures, including the police themselves.
A lot starts making more sense in that context.
Like, think of any mass social protest movement. Who is the primary "boots-on-the-ground" opposition? It is always the police. It will always be the police. That's what they're there for.
In my city the police deliberately avoid enforcing basic traffic laws and petty crime in a bid to get more funding. As that continues more and more of my neighbors arm themselves. At some point the scales tip and the people take matters into their own hands.
Police can abuse their power in the short term but it can’t continue forever.
Like, what exactly is “mob rule”? Why am I supposed to fear it? Why is it worse than today’s system of rule by a powerful unaccountable minority?
Why is it per se good for the police to enforce laws and fight crime? Those are both social constructs that can target anyone we want them to. 60 years ago, they would have prevented me from marrying my wife; 90 years ago, they would have prevented me from fleeing genocide.
What happens in your ideal future state if the rich and powerful refuse to change unjust laws? If people rise up against oppression, what happens?
I mean. Look at: Paw Patrol, Miami Vice, Tokyo Vice, the Wire, Criminal Minds, Chicago PD, Southland, Bosch, Law and Order: all of them, law and Order: all of them, CSI: all of them, Luther, The Shield, Reno 911, etc.
I mean this list is just from the top of my head.
We are being indoctrinated in our image of the police. Some rotten apples are shown, but in the end they are always The Good Guys.
The alternative to a state monopoly on violence is mob rule. You can call that state entity whatever you want, police, militia, whatever. But some regulated construct needs to exist.
If you can’t separate that concept from the current model of policing it’s unlikely we can have an interesting conversation.
You can not have a free society without a populace taking responsibility for their own. There is a reason the slogan "freedom isn't free", was a big thing in America til just a generation or two ago. The second you start delegating things like safety to the gov you've lost.
Just look at modern America, a giant portion of folks cannot survive without gov assistance now, and look where that got us. How can you oppose a corrupt gov if you cannot even survive without it?
Unless you are so brainwashed (as many still are) that you think that the total lack of privacy and agency in modern America is both good, and somehow fitting to the intent of the Constitution as written.
Doesn't that encourage vigilanteism?
Like these jackasses[0]. You want to give these people the right to arbitrarily arrest, detain and kill because two centuries ago Thomas Jefferson saw the horrors of the French Revolution, got the biggest boner of his life and thought "how about that, but a whole country, all the time?"
No thank you. I don't trust the cops but I trust my fellow armed Americans even less. At least the police, ostensibly, have a system they have to abide by other than a piece of parchment saying "everyone gets as many guns as they want, no questions asked." What you're advocating is essentially gang warfare.
Also, "freedom isn't free" became popular as a meme from South Park making fun of the wave of jingoistic, patriotic BS songs after 9/11.
It costs a buck o'five, by the way.
Boomers are more than “a generation or two ago.”
Please bring data when making bold assertions. You are making the assertion: "a majority of people agree with the statement: 'a total lack of privacy and agency in modern America are both good'" - without data, you don't know and it is best left unsaid. It's individuals all the way down and you don't know the context and experiences of others. Again, without data, nobody knows.
-------------
Let's move along. I found this to be really interesting:
> Well, if you are talking about the United States and the supposed Supreme Law of the Land that nobody seems to be too well educated on nowadays, actually it is the job of local militia to defend and enforce civil order
Where does that idea come from? Honest question. Where can I read more about that?
----------------
Generally to understand US history and its laws, my understanding is you need to look to British history and British Common law.
"During the War of 1812, state militias were intended to be the primary fighting force. Unfortunately, while militiamen showed willingness to fight, they were untrained, undisciplined, and ill-equipped." [1]
This is to say the militia was intended to be able to come together in aggregate to form an army.
Going further back to British history:
"Under Elizabeth the English militia system developed still farther; indeed, it was during her reign that the phrase "militia" was first used to describe the concept of a universally armed people ready to stand in defense of their nation" [2]
Resource ([2]) is a fantastic read and gives a very compelling rationale why the 2nd amendment was actually intended as an individual right to bear arms rather than just the right to have well regulated militias. I think you'll find it interesting.
Overall, the rights to religion, the right of assembly and the right to bear arms were very important to the US constitional assembly because this had happened a hundred years prior under a British King:
> Following Cromwell's death, the English were more than happy to accept back the son of the late Charles, Charles II, as monarch. Charles II promptly dissolved the army, offering full pay plus a (p.50)bonus from his own finances, and guaranteeing work on public works projects for the demobilized troops.[31] He also sought to secure himself by a variety of legislation which people in Parliament, in their haste to welcome the end of Puritan rule, did not recognize as dictatorial. In 1661 and 1662 he expanded the definition of treason, imposed press censorship, restricted practice of religion by Puritans and others and leveled the protective walls of many towns which had sided with Parliament.[32] Instructions were also issued to the lord's lieutenant to form special militia units out of volunteers of favorable political views, "the officers to be numerous, disaffected persons watched and not allowed to assemble, and their arms seized...." [2]
In sum, the militias were intended as the backbone of a citizen army. That is very much in line with the idea of a government for the people and by the people. These ideas make a lot of sense to me, but I personally question their applicability following the Industrial Revolution.
In sum, the first and second amendment essentially codify that a King can't the rights away of assembly, religion or bearing arms from anyone, regardless of whether they follow the same religion as the king or agree politically with the king or not.
If you want some solid reasoning for why the 2nd amendment is an individual right, do check out [2]. [2] was a very convincing read for me and before reading it I disagreed with the statement that the 2nd amendment guaranteed an individual right to bear arms.
[1] https://uknowledge.uky.edu/upk_military_history/7/#
[2] https://guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senhardy.html*
* [2] is clearly slanted and has an agenda, but the history and research seem pretty solid; I was swayed to its point of view.
Police exist because they were funded by governments. They are the way they are because of the various incentives, organizational politics, their day-to-day experiences on the job, and the minds of the people who staff them. Rather than declaring them part of a fascist plot, why not just try to think about where improvements can be made?
> Rather than declaring them part of a fascist plot, why not just try to think about where improvements can be made?
The first step to fixing a system is to understand it. Taking a valid description and twisting it in to an accusation of a "fascist plot" is a great way to ensure you will never understand the system in the way which is required to actually improve it.
But the description "police exist to enforce existing power structures" implies that the power structures are illegitimate, which suggests that the police are as well, which in turn suggests we should tear it all down and start over.
But I've never seen anyone who 1) recommends tearing everything down and 2) has a realistic (or even defined) plan to rebuild it.
You're right about number 2, though.
supports removing funds from police departments and reallocating them to non-policing forms of public safety and community support, such as social services, youth services, housing, education, healthcare and other community resources. Activists who use the phrase may do so with varying intentions; some seek modest reductions, while others argue for full divestment as a step toward the abolition of contemporary police services. Activists who support the defunding of police departments often argue that investing in community programs could provide a better crime deterrent for communities; funds would go toward addressing social issues, like poverty, homelessness, and mental disorders.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fasci...
Edit: you're also very wrong about number 2, you just haven't been exposed to people proposing solutions.
Here is a 20 year old very famous book:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Are_Prisons_Obsolete%3F?wprov=...
I think this is fairly evident, yes.
> which in turn suggests we should tear it all down and start over.
Well it certainly suggests something should be done. Tearing it all down seems like a straw man though. Certain aspects of it should certainly be torn down.
> But I've never seen anyone who 1) recommends tearing everything down and 2) has a realistic (or even defined) plan to rebuild it.
I do think it's very funny when people use their own ignorance as evidence for an argument.
Your own argument comes from "I think this is fairly evident" (at the top of your post). How is that different from ignorance?
That's the picture as it exists today. If you don't see existing power structures anywhere in that picture, you may need [new] glasses.
Congrats, you just provided a description of "power structures". Now you know.
> Rather than declaring them part of a fascist plot
Especially as a lawyer, you should know better than to put words in someone else's mouth - it leads to people distrusting what you say. I'll certainly be more closely checking what you're replying to from now on...
The problem with a phrase like 'power structures' is people who use it get to define it to be whatever they want it to be. You're telling me here that it means 'incentives and organizational politics' (factors that affect any group of humans, regardless of the political 'power' of the group's constituents). But other places I see definitions like 'banks' or 'rich people.'
>Especially as a lawyer, you should know better than to put words in someone else's mouth - it leads to people distrusting what you say. I'll certainly be more closely checking what you're replying to from now on...
That's my reaction when someone tells me I'm a part of a power structure -- they're effectively calling me a fascist. I think it's a fair reaction given the way political conversations go these ways. I appreciate your attention to close reading, though, and am genuinely sorry to hear you don't trust my commentary.
This is a good point. Fascism is made up and has never existed, and it certainly has never been created or perpetuated by police. It is a mystery why anyone would make a statement otherwise when the better option of discussing theoretical incremental change is on the table.
Going to police stations and identifying issues with them, and describing them in apolitical terms, and asking the police chief to consider and act on them, and voting him or her out if they don't act on them, is more 'revolutionary' than standing outside their office with 'ACAB' posters.
I'm reminded of the line about how hard it is to get someone to understand something when their livelihood depends on their NOT understanding it.
I like that saying, too. But not sure it applies here -- there are huge numbers of lawyers who like talking about 'power structures.' It may have been invented by us. We lawyers invented, for example, critical race theory.
You could be right, though, maybe I am biased. I'd be interested to learn how.
Police has lots of problems in USA. But go live in the country without effective police force first, and then talk about how police isn’t here to enforce laws and justice.
Police here are not interested in justice, and this is trivial to prove based on their behavior.
Courts have also ruled that police have no duty to protect citizens.
Policing in the US is fundamentally broken. That there exist places with worse policing problems does not mean ours are not serious, foundational, and endemic.
Is it? There are bad stories, sure. Horrible ones, yes. Police officers who should be in jail for life - yes!
But there’s also a tons of good stories, that just don’t get reported, because they don’t generate outrage and clicks.
Cops do what is easy, by and large. The overriding motivations in the job do not align with the values that the public would actually WANT from a police force. They are not required to "protect and serve," and have actually argued in court (and won!) that they are not required to protect anyone.
They are protected by a union with absurdly outsized power, which prevents real accountability in all but the most egregious cases. These unions and their fellow-travelers work hard to prevent common-sense recordkeeping on national violent incidents by cops, and to avoid any kind of national peace officer licensing and certification that would keep bad cops "fired" by one city from just drifting to the next town over and continuing their behavior.
Cops, in the US, are part of the problem.
Police can have big problems, that you mention, and at the same time can be interested in justice.
Are software engineers force of evil, because of lot of them work for companies that disregard privacy and make billions of dollars off it? And are not required by law to follow ethical standards?
I feel like you're either very naive about American policing, or you are unwilling to engage with this in good faith, so I'm going to bow out here -- but your comparison is honestly risible.
I’m agreeing from a start, that USA police has tons of issues. But it’s not a lawless institution. Really, go live in a country without effective policing and then we can talk if USA police is only bringing lawlessness to the table.
The cops can get a warrant. If they can’t convince a judge then they don’t need to seize anything. The police serve us, not the other way around.
They know who they serve. Seems to be themselves.
I think you are slightly confused. Civil asset forfeiture does not require any crime (hence civil asset forfeiture, rather than criminal asset forfeiture), and the government charges the property itself, the owner is a third party claimant.
The language of the clause means you can't disconnect persons, houses, papers, and effects.
People are secure in their persons, their houses, their effects.
It's not a weird quirk of some conflicting criminal/civil law.
It's part of the document that binds all other laws.
Making people a third party to their effects means you could also do that to their person, which is complete nonsense.
> Civil asset forfeiture does not require any crime
But it certainly does require suspicion of wrongdoing. You can't just walk up and take something from someone just because you don't charge them.
That's because it's civil forfeiture. There is no presumption of innocence in civil law; it's part of criminal law.
[1]And whom, even if they still had those resources, quite often wouldn't be able to afford the costs associated with proving themselves innocent to get their stuff back in the first place.
E: Oh that's how you do italics on HN.
From my perspective, “cops can take your stuff unless you prove your innocence because it’s not a criminal proceeding” is a distinction without a difference. Cops shouldn’t be able to just take your stuff.
The government has to prove suspicion of wrongdoing on a preponderence of the evidence.
Edit:
You can show up to a civil forfeiture case as a claimant, refuse to answer other questions under the 5A, and walk out with the goods if the judge doesn't think there's any wrongdoing.
Next time on the program: why "assault" in "battery and assault" doesn't actually mean the same as "assault" in colloquial speech.
0 - note that if this happens to your property, it sure will feel like it is happening to you. Lawyers will be happy to lawsplain their BS theory[2] to you for a nominal hourly fee. This will not make you feel any better for having been robbed at gunpoint.
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_rem_jurisdiction
2 - Spoiler alert: the theory is exactly as stupid as it sounds.
Imagine that it's 1804, and a ship shows up in port carrying contraband. The sailors on the ship didn't know about it, they just make sure the boat doesn't sink. The owners are nowhere to be found, they live in London or Paris or Antwerp or something, and you'll never be able to arrest them for it (this is the pre-extradition world).
What do you do with the contraband? You need a formal law to deal with seizing it. And this serves as the framework for our modern civil forfeiture laws. A case would be entered into the dockets something like "State of New York vs. 152 Gallons of Whisky" or whatever. The whisky itself committed no crime, there can't be a criminal case.
Edit: rhetorical question as I don’t think you’re actually of the opinion that it’s reasonable.
(Referendums notwithstanding.)
The difference being that who needs to prove what can be quite flexible.
In civil contexts however, the legal standard is the much lower "preponderance of evidence" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)#Preponde...).
For example congress could legislate that some specific crimes should use "preponderance of evidence" rather than "resonable doubt" or even require that the defendants prove their own innocence beyond resonable doubt.
In the case of civil forfeiture I suspect that the individual whose property was seized has a constitutional right to appeal in some way, but also the constitution has little to say about the rules of that appeal process.
So naturally, because in most civil cases its the other party's inaction that's supposed to be punished, courts adopt "guilty until proven otherwise" stance. Now it's the other party that has to show a receipt signed by you, or to show their bank statement that says they've transfered money to you, etc. That's one reason why there is so much paper trail in business and commerce — so that's when someone sues you, you could use all that paper to cover your ass.
You have to prove the cash did not commit a crime. This sounds absurd, but it's easily prove, the cases are named things like United States vs. $117,000 in Cash and State of Missouri vs. Gold Jewelry Worth Approximately $1400.
But if that's not absurd enough for you, boy do I have some good news for you! Since the case is against the property, you the previous owner of that property don't automatically have standing. Court cases in the US are based on common law (except maybe Louisiana, who knows what goes on in that Bonapartist shithole), to appear in court at trial, you have to prove that you're actually a party to the case. It's automatic if you're the defendant in a criminal trial (or plaintiff in civil), or the prosecutor... but third parties are usually told to pound sand. And the case clearly names the property as the defendant.
Don't let me overstate it... as far as I know, no one's ever been denied standing when petitioning this, but it's another hoop to jump through. One that will cost you money.
If they seized less than $10,000 or so, forget it. It'll cost you that to get the stuff back. So they tend to target lesser amounts now days, knowing that no one will bother. And if it's a higher amount, they'll often try to settle... "hey we know it will cost you another $5000, so why don't you take half and we keep the rest?" Of course, you're still paying the lawyer a few grand to get that far, and it will come out of your $5000, and not their (using that word pains me) half.
If you haven't retched in your own mouth a little, then I still haven't properly explained how bad this is. Go read.
But why? You lose your presumption of innocence, you lose a guaranteed defence attorney, and you still face years of prison and maybe even the chair... there is a reason why offences with gravest punishments (that is, crimes) have pretty strict procedures and proof requirements set up around them.
But there are plenty of stories out there of people having very large amounts taken from them on their way to buy cars or whatever. The story probably picked a bad example but the police are definitely just taking whatever they can get without any regard for justice.
It really doesn't matter: if someone wants to carry a large quantity of cash on a plane, this is still an open society and freedom must be defended.
I agree there probably are times that it happens, but it's very unlikely. There are much better examples where the police steal large amounts of cash even when there's an obvious legitimate explanation.
You can't just walk into any bank branch you have an account with an expect to withdraw 10s of thousands of dollars without notice.
Also, there are tons of people with online only banks. No physical branches at all!
I'm not saying it never happens, it's just extremely suss.
He and everyone suspected one classmate. Cops searched him and found the phone and other stolen phones. They were all taken into “evidence” and refused to give it back no matter how many times we asked.
We had to buy a new phone.
Fuckers.
https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/criminal/criminal-law-bas...
This is a pretty big freaking caveat. If you actually look at the DOJ source, about $1 billion a year comes from low-level seizures (https://www.justice.gov/d9/pages/attachments/2020/02/09/afp_...) Almost all of the rest comes from huge white-collar busts.
The white collar seizures almost work the exact same way. Toyota was never charged with a crime over their accelerator pedal issue. But the government just seized 1.2 billion from them and kept a huge chunk of it for themselves.
That is certainly true. But how do you measure legitimate vs illegitimate taking of property?
With burglary, it is fairly trivial. But otherwise? I'm not aware of statistics breaking down the amount of money and assets that get taken without any charges.
Most of the time, the people who are robbed by the police can't afford or don't know how to get their property back.
That is, this is much less concerning if the numbers are such that 90%, say, is proven illicit.
To get the money back, it must be fought in court. Legal fees are not returned if the case is won, and if lost, you must cover the defense fees. In Illinois the median forfeiture was about $1k, with many <$100 forfeitures clustered in the poorest neighborhoods, while lawyer fees are ~$3k for state/local police cases. Federal seizures are much more expensive to fight.
There's no process where the police further verify the provenance of the cash they seize and return it without it being fought for in court. It's taken and they celebrate it and move on. So as with most police oversight, the numbers you're asking for don't exist.
Bernie Madoff had his assets seized. That's not wrong, illegal, or unconstitutional.
but that is the clearest depiction of this caste system. people that can obviously fight do not have their cash and effects seized.
Maybe we need a "NRA" for money, property, and encryption.
one that the 4th amendment doesn't apply because you haven't proved its yours. the text says "The right of the people to be secure in their" so it applies after you prove it is something you have the right to be secure of to begin with! and if there is something illegal you incriminate yourself in the process and it switches to a criminal charge against you and the associated criminal asset forfeiture.
but our new supreme court will re-examine it more decisively, lets wait till next year and see what happens!
Wow, that's almost literally the logic of a playground bully: "well you can't prove it's yours therefore it's mine".
Likely alerted to the scent of drug residues on the bills, which is supposedly on essentially every bill in circulation.
So, perhaps the owner of the cash might have been better off by first putting it in a washing machine with soap, i.e. physically laundering the money?
If contraband or other crimes were involved, then I say seize property, but the police shouldn't be the Sheriff of Nottingham looking for citizens to rob.
If you decide to simply take $20 out of the till to pay yourself - that's criminal theft. You get arrested, go to jail, and have to fight criminal charges.
It's one of the more blatant examples of how the laws of the United States are written to unjustly empower those with wealth that I am aware of.
The most blatant thing for me will always be the tax code.
Alone way that W2 income vs long term capital gains is taxed (not to mention that losses are fully tax deductible) makes the message very clear.
To offset regular income, it's only $3000 a year but losses can be carried forward (though it stays at the dollar value, no inflation is taken into account).
So often largely deductible with some caveats.
It still seems asinine that bad investments are essentially tax subsidized, but whatever.
The point is that in the business context, expenses required to create income are deductible. If you get paid on a 1099, you get treated as a business and can take those deductions. You can even claim a section 179 accelerated depreciation, and immediately deduct half of the capital expense.
The point is there are many such deductions that businesses straightforwardly take, that natural persons are told it's all "personal use", despite them being directly necessary to sustain person-as-an-economic-actor.
But on the second hand (and this was my main point here), these are deductions that businesses already get to take. Get routinely paid on a 1099, and see all the deductions you can take essentially by virtue of now "running your own business". It's obscene. Perhaps set up an LLC+S-corp for even more.
But on the third hand, I get the argument that if we just eliminated business deductions in general, that "thin businesses" would be impractical.
Looking at the current capital gains rate is actually too rosy, since there are so many loopholes and exceptions that wealthy people can use to bring the rate down. The actual effective tax rate billionaires in the US pay is below 10%.
I doubt something like this will ever happen given how many selfish interests would fight against it. It sure would be great though if middle class workers didn't pay a higher tax rate than millionaires.
[0] I'm throwing out round numbers but have seen research that backs up figures in this ballpark.
If a contractor takes your down payment and then never installs the toilet is that criminal theft?
If a contractor installs your toilet without advance payment and then you never pay her, is that criminal theft?
I suspect most people would be perfectly happy with people facing criminal punishment in large scale wage theft cases. The same probably isn't true for toilet installation disputes.
Correct. The point was to raise the question, if that, why not also this?
To the extent that the funds were entrusted to the contractor on the premise they would be used to purchase third-party goods and services on your behalf, the crime would seem to me to be embezzlement, which is usually distinct from theft but often punished similarly and part of the broad family of property crimes. Advanced payment for services to be rendered, I’m less sure of fitting into that.
> If a contractor installs your toilet without advance payment and then you never pay her, is that criminal theft?
In California, the wage theft law applies to contract as well as W-2 employment.
Note that in either case, there may be a compensable civil wrong without the intent requirement for crime, even if the general scenario described can fit a crime.
That doesn't require wealth as much as it requires equity. We get wealthier every year but we don't get more equitable, and our investment in things like education, health care, and infrastructure is definitely not rising accordingly.
It has never been the case that we simply weren't wealthy enough to build a just society, it's that our society is structured to promote inequality and maximize the influence of the wealthy.
Maybe my value system that blames wealth is misappropriating the value to wealth when really it's things that correlate with wealth? That's possible of course, but with such consistent correlation I have to imagine it's hard to separate wealth from the society that I most prefer living in.
Happy to be wrong, as equity is a lot more palatable emotionally.
I certainly won't claim that wealth isn't an important factor in outcomes, what I really mean is that it's not a great terminal goal for a society. We shouldn't be hoarding resources, we should be using them to create a better world for ourselves and for future people.
In truth we waste a stupendous amount of money and human potential by, for instance, introducing a system of unnecessary middle men (insurance companies) to the healthcare system rather than negotiating with pharmaceutical companies as a nation with astronomical buying power.
Human potential, I'll note, is worthy in it's own right, but is also a very valuable through a strictly economic lens. People who meet their potential contribute immensely to the economy, people who aren't able to because their society never bothered to invest in them may contribute not not nearly as much as they could have. Eg, if we hadn't funded NASA, we wouldn't have a space industry (to say nothing of the many other industries that benefited in ancillary ways).
It's hard to judge someones true intent, but I don't know that I've ever met a person that opposes benevolent programs of any sort if they aren't associated with costs. So if people truly do oppose social programs based only on the cost (both direct and indirect) I do believe that's an ethically defensible position. It's hard for me to imagine a person who doesn't want programs that help people, though and only uses cost as a way to shroud their ill-intent. I hope you're wrong about these people existing.
I think the confusion here may be that you're seeing things through your own ideological lens (as we all do) and so you've classified these as "not truly benevolent?" (I don't mean that as a criticism, just a shot in the dark.)
> handouts make people dependent on the government
This is a judgement based on cost - you or I may disagree with the value of the cost, but it is a centralization cost which increases risk. Playing devils advocate, but if your livelihood becomes dependent on a government program and you also watch government programs risking collapse (such as US social security) then the risk becomes obvious that it exists (and each individual will decide for themselves how likely this risk is to manifest)
> the government shouldn't have a say in our healthcare
I think this statement doesn't really fall into the category of things we're talking about. There's nothing about governments involvement in healthcare that means the program is better or worse or more/less benevolent. It would depend on the government and their involvement.
> the government shouldn't decide whether my child learns about X
I would a similar argument as the previous for this.
This is what I meant about "not truly benevolent," it certainly is the case that these are arguments that the social programs don't help people. All well and good, but my claim was that they were ideologically opposed to social programs, not anything about whether they were opposed to people being helped or something. I never said that at all.
> This is a judgement based on cost
But it isn't. It's a view about outcome, not cost. If we reduced the cost to zero somehow (obviously impossible but bare with me), their objection wouldn't disappear because it hadn't been addressed.
> I think this statement doesn't really fall into the category of things we're talking about. There's nothing about governments involvement in healthcare that means the program is better or worse or more/less benevolent. It would depend on the government and their involvement.
I'm not making a statement about being more out less benevolent, I'm saying this is an ideological statement, which it transparently is. "The government shouldn't have a say in healthcare/education" isn't any kind of factual claim. It's a claim about how the world ought to work.
I don't see how wealth of the nation helps someone in any way when their piece of it is so small that they can't afford food, healthcare and roof over their head. How is even rational to value something that is actively used to take what little they to enrich "nation".
Yes, it is, in California, at least (and, as of this year, if it was over $950 instead of $20, it would be felony grand theft of wages, rather than a misdemeanor theft.)
Of course, criminal process has a higher proof bar and requires a public prosecutor to care enough to do something, doesn’t improve recovery for the victim, and is usually slower, so actual recovery is probably going to happen through civil/administrative process even if a crime is on the books and applicable.
Wage theft really should be a strict liability crime -- only proof necessary to convict is that it happened, not that it was intended.
It would still take a public prosecutor to care, and the failure to pay as required is already a strict-liability tort. Not sure that enabling discretionary criminal punishment of acts that are neither intentional, reckless, nor even negligent in this domain helps anyone.
This point we disagree on. Wage theft is almost always intentional, always reckless, and should be considered negligent as a default.
Wage theft is one of the places where I am okay with guilty until proven innocent because of the huge power disparity between the affected parties.
It isnt and shouldn't be in terms of criminal law.
Someone drops a zero on you paycheck, you can sue them civially simply because it happened.
However, a simple mistake should not be a felony when there is already a path to redress accidental damages.
People should be encouraged to file, and the courts should have hearing within a reasonable timeframe, and do so efficiently.
The bottleneck is that the state does a terrible job of handling claims. califonia has an average wait time of 505 days for a hearing for people who dont drop or settle their claim. Under these conditions, most people will continue to not file claims. Especially when only 1 in 7 people that win in court actually get paid.
It doesn't help that the california government is grossly inefficient. The labor commission budget is >160 million, and issues ~50 million in judgements, of which only ~20% actually get paid. So we are talking about a program that costs 1600% more to run than the judgements it hands out.
How's that for depressing.
https://calmatters.org/california-divide/2022/09/california-...
That's not the only bottleneck. You also need to have the time and resources to pursue this, and it has to be worth your time. If your employer stole $500 from you, but it will cost you $1000 to get those wages back, it's not worth pursuing it in court. And the cost can be in terms of time that you spend on it.
A lot of wage theft is very small amounts that are individually rarely worth pursuing. They also waste a lot of government resources too, for the same reason.
So maybe individual wage theft shouldn't be a strict liability crime, but at some level, it should rise to criminal charges being brought against the management of the company. If a bunch of your employees have reported wage theft against you, and all you have to do is potentially pay them back just what you stole (as you point out, it's not even a given you'd have to pay it back) -- why would you _not_ skim a bit of your employees wages? Add in a very long statute of limitations for wage theft (say 10 years at a minimum) and the chance for management to spend 5-10 years in the clink, I suspect wage theft will decrease quite a bit.
Intent isnt a requirement to get a judgement in california, and it IS a crime.
It still takes >500 days to just get a determination that wages are owed (theft intended or not).
Most people cant prove wage theft with evidence the day it happens, let alone 10 years down the road.
Most police departments barely bother with armed robbery and auto theft. They have no legal obligation to pursue criminals. Where do you think investigating wage theft cases with flimsy evidence will rank on their priorities?
I stand by my position that the only way to improve things is ensure speedy case resolution. Make it likely employers will actually be caught and have a reasonable criminal punishment.
US criminal law isnt really set up to hand out enormous punishments just to make examples of people. 10 years in the clink for stealing $500 wages would be cruel and unusual punishment.
And no, I have no problem with forcing employers to prove their innocence instead of the other way around. There's no reason to treat business and natural persons the same way.
You would then have to make sure to include a consideration of conspiracy in the case where the owners pressured the manager - just as you would consider conspiracy in a case where a thief was hired by someone else to execute a theft.
Sometimes that causes companies to abruptly shutdown and not meet payroll.
It should be criminal to sign a term sheet and not wire funds, and even in the case of a handshake deal employees should have recourse to get their last paycheck with that investor AND extend their H1B validity for an additional 6 months to find a job.
edit: and evidently are topics that will get articles nuked off the front page here
* Time theft causes U.S. employers more than $400 billion per year lost in productivity.
* In a survey done in 2015, 43% of employees admitted to deliberately committing time theft. And, 25% of employees admitted to reporting more hours than they actually worked 75% to 100% of the time!
How? Isn't this a whataboutism?
And do your bullet points have sources? They sound like the sort of thing a corrupt business would falsely report.
I am trying to parody the point that as soon as we decide that theft can mean whatever we wish it to (for presumably good reasons), then that implicitly allows everyone (including people you’d rather didn’t) to use theft to mean whatever they want it to.
Civil forfeiture is not theft (although it certainly feels like it to victims, and there are similarities between the two concepts).
Thread root claims wage theft is a bigger problem, and I am balancing that with time theft.
Sorry for stealing your attention.
How do you figure?
The way I see it, civil forfeiture IS theft. Taking something that belongs to someone else without their consent is theft and that seems to be precisely what civil forfeiture consists of. Just because a court has labelled it differently if someone in a blue hat does it does not make it suddenly not theft. It is simply court-sanctioned theft.
Words can mean whatever we want.
“Theft from the government” could be defined as someone being insufficiently civil, or someone showing insufficient altruism towards other citizens.
Today I'm a SWE, writing this comment while working from home. I often get praises by my manager for my work. I plan to clean my apartment this afternoon and maybe do some groceries. Never heard anything about time theft at my current workplace.
Unfortunately, managers can see how many boxes are left in a truck and how many were unloaded, they can't really see how many more line of codes are needed to finish a feature or how much thinking about the problem is required to find a solution.
"Time theft" should be stealing the employees' time, by not paying.
Pretending to work could be called "wage theft" too, as the employee could be comsidered stealing wage from the employer.
Edit: Oh ... ye ok got it. "Time theft" works both ways too.
Of course, I guess, fentanyl et al. are a thing because more benign drugs were criminalized for so long. However in no way does that make hard drugs comparable to caffeine though... Do you believe that all substances must be legalized and widely available?
I think most of the popular drugs should be legalized with various levels of access and greater restrictions for the drugs we known are most prone to serious abuse, such as opioids and speed (along with nicotine and alcohol). There's simply no reason a grown adult shouldn't be able to smoke a joint or eat some mushrooms or do some lines of coke in their own home - and buy them safely and legally without undue fear of impurities.
Under what circumstances do you think fentanyl could be legalized?
Opioids are already legal to some degree, it's just over-prescribing them had a massive backlash and shifting to a completely opposite direction (not that addiction was ever technically a valid reason to get a prescription).
> There's simply no reason a grown adult shouldn't be able to smoke a joint
Yes, but you still agree we have to draw a line at some point. How do we handle substances that end up being on the other side of it? Do we just ignore them and their distribution not to "curtail civil liberties"?
> who do have serious addiction problems and ruins lives, mostly of more vulnerable people, with fines and criminal records and jail time
That's awful and should not happen. But is it still that widespread these days? Many(most?) places just seem to ignore addicts and abandon them without providing any real support.
> along with nicotine and alcohol
What's wrong with nicotine? It's mostly harmless (even if quite addictive) in it's pure form...
Anyway if you actually consider even alcohol to be on the other side of that line, I'm not quite sure what you're proposing? If weed and mushrooms are legalized we're still left with 95%+ of all drugs related problems we had before that.
Civil asset forfeiture needs to disappear completely and forever.
But I think in this case the issue is not the tool to freeze or seize assets in itself, which used pragmatically helps society, is the accountability of those who exploit it
I have vibes regarding this like those who said ok there are some shitty cops who shot people, then let’s defund the police
I don't really see how that matters. Most people tried for murder are guilty, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have their day in court.
you keep saying this but you have no data whatsoever to support this claim.
> In practice, however, civil forfeiture is often wielded against regular people who aren’t doing anything wrong. In many states the typical cash forfeiture amount is in the hundreds of dollars — $423 in Michigan, or $369 in Pennsylvania, according to the latest data from the Institute for Justice, a law firm that represents forfeiture victims and tracks the practice nationwide. In many cities police departments have been known to make seizures of less than $100 on the flimsiest pretenses, typically concentrated in the poorest neighborhoods.
The usage of 'typical' sounds like they mean 'average', for such precise numbers.
Torture might be an effective way to get most criminals to confess and getting a slam dunk conviction when going to trial where a jury may mistakenly exonerate them, but that doesn't mean that it's the _right_ or even _moral_ way to do so.
Further, ask yourself this - what is a crime? Answer - it's whatever the legislature says it is, and as a political body they are influenced by what the dominant group in power wants.
"Although there are accessible statistics of seizures at the federal level, it often happens that the totals of forfeitures from both criminals and innocent owners are combined; for example, one report was that in 2010, government seized $2.5 billion in assets from criminals and innocent owners by forfeiture methods,[16] and the totals of assets seized incorrectly from innocent owners was not separated statistically. Further, since the United States is a federal republic with governments at both the national and state level, there are civil forfeiture seizures at the state level, which are not tracked and recorded in any central database,[12] which make it difficult to make assessments, since state laws and procedures vary widely."
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...