New Study Finds Forfeiture Doesn’t Fight Crime, Is Used to Raise Revenue

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 28 июл 2024

Комментарии • 112

  • @InstituteForJustice
    @InstituteForJustice  3 года назад +6

    Check out the report here: ij.org/report/does-forfeiture-work

  • @unsearchablethings8167
    @unsearchablethings8167 3 года назад +36

    Of course!!! Theft of property without due process. Often the “crime” is just having cash. Nothing else. Cash is not a crime.

    • @matthewronson5218
      @matthewronson5218 3 года назад +3

      Yes, or depositing it in "incorrect" amounts.

    • @unsearchablethings8167
      @unsearchablethings8167 3 года назад +3

      @@matthewronson5218 that only applies to we the “little”’ people as well. I’m sure billionaires get a visit from the IRS and cops every time they deposit $10k or more (Sarc)

    • @matthewronson5218
      @matthewronson5218 3 года назад +4

      @@unsearchablethings8167 Take the recent conviction of the D.C. lawyer who provided falsified evidence, justifying the illegal surveillance of reporters for the Obama Administration: he got probation and 400 hours of community service.
      Now, let those like you and me create then knowingly providing false evidence to the "Justice" Dept. and see what kind of sentencing ensues...

    • @unsearchablethings8167
      @unsearchablethings8167 3 года назад +2

      @@matthewronson5218 yep. Two tiered justice system. One for us, another for them.

    • @edwardmiessner6502
      @edwardmiessner6502 3 года назад

      @@matthewronson5218 or lie to unknown undercover federal agents about anything that in their opinion pertains to their investigation, thinking they are impersonators and thugs (Michigan v James Lee King / James King v United States et al / Brownback v King)

  • @garyhodges8931
    @garyhodges8931 3 года назад +11

    accountability

  • @angelg.s.1053
    @angelg.s.1053 3 года назад +11

    They should do a study on the big business of DUIs in small towns.

  • @garymack9734
    @garymack9734 3 года назад +5

    Should never been one case of forfeiture, period

  • @angelg.s.1053
    @angelg.s.1053 3 года назад +13

    They had to do a study to find out? It’s plain common sense.

    • @nonyabizness.original
      @nonyabizness.original 3 года назад +1

      a study creates solid EVIDENCE. common sense is not evidence.

    • @angelg.s.1053
      @angelg.s.1053 3 года назад

      @@nonyabizness.original Common sense doesn’t require evidence.

  • @DavidPimentel
    @DavidPimentel 3 года назад +39

    The conclusions of this study were obvious before I ever heard of it. Civil asset forfeiture, like taxation, is legalized theft.

    • @edwardmiessner6502
      @edwardmiessner6502 3 года назад +2

      Legalised armed highway robbery more like! The Romans used to *crucify* the felons who commited it

  • @matthewronson5218
    @matthewronson5218 3 года назад +33

    Essentially ALL Police Departments are used as a revenue enhancement racket.

  • @chowner
    @chowner 3 года назад +16

    I'll take things that are obvious for $200 Alex

  • @nancykurtz7333
    @nancykurtz7333 3 года назад +10

    funny. when I was young and first driving, we were warned that driving in Mexico, you might find that you have to pay those police with cash to be on your way. then it happens in the states. no one should carry cash

  • @fuferito
    @fuferito 3 года назад +4

    Legalized plunder.

  • @mourningwarbler
    @mourningwarbler 3 года назад +5

    In Florida, and perhaps in other states, mental health laws are abused, used unlawfully, to raise revenue. It's being used to discipline children in public schools, even without first notifying the parents, which would be part of the law. It is a very traumatic thing to put a child or anyone through when they are not at all meeting the requirements of the law for the Baker Act.

    • @mourningwarbler
      @mourningwarbler 3 года назад

      @Rascal E. Varmint AND they charge the person for all costs both via insurance and copays. We're talking thousands of dollars gained by the institutions for simply housing children or adults unlawfully baker acted. And the lies on reports are permanent.

    • @edwardmiessner6502
      @edwardmiessner6502 3 года назад

      @@treeaddict this includes the corporations because they are ALL government creatures

    • @jjosephm7539
      @jjosephm7539 3 года назад

      One of my nephews was Baker Acted for saying the phrase "I'll blast you," in school.
      The hospital sent a sizable bill to his parents for the "evaluation" costs.
      The bill was never paid.

    • @mourningwarbler
      @mourningwarbler 3 года назад +1

      @@jjosephm7539 I've heard they tap into medicaid & medicare. What happened to just sending the kid to the principal's office? Good thing there was no such law to abuse and use unlawfully in Patrick Henry's day.

  • @markcombs6297
    @markcombs6297 3 года назад +3

    I thought policing for profit was unconstitutional.

  • @jeremyhennessee6604
    @jeremyhennessee6604 2 года назад

    It not only "creates an incentive"..it downright ENCOURAGES dishonest, corrupt behavior for the sake of gain.

  • @jeremyhennessee6604
    @jeremyhennessee6604 2 года назад

    Thank you all for your hard work.

  • @penrodautorepair3170
    @penrodautorepair3170 3 года назад +3

    This is why Marvin built the kill dozer an bulldozed the court house.

  • @sicajes6812
    @sicajes6812 3 года назад +1

    my retired coworker who used to be a cop(he is working part time now because he needs to get out) said that his police unit dont have quota tickets but the BOSSS always get lectured on why they dont have enough violations or tickets.. ironic eh??

  • @randyb3851
    @randyb3851 3 года назад +6

    Color me shocked

  • @ScottSeverance
    @ScottSeverance 3 года назад +4

    I have to differ with the opinions expressed in this video. Policing for profit, while certainly very wrong, isn't the fundamental problem with civil forfeiture. The fundamental problem is that it's unconstitutional and unconscionable to take a person's property unless BOTH a) the property owner has been convicted of a crime and b) property forfeiture is explicitly allowed in statute to be a penalty for the crime the property owner was convicted of. This is entirely without regard to who gets to keep any forfeited assets.

    • @maebandy
      @maebandy 3 года назад

      pasting this on a few comments bc I feel it bears repeating
      New ruling allows border patrol to search, and COPY any or all info from your phone, or laptop anywhere within 100 miles of the border, no reasonable suspicion or warrant required. They actually specified no reasonable suspicion required, not my words.

    • @nonyabizness.original
      @nonyabizness.original 3 года назад

      @@maebandy CDP DIRECTIVE NO. 3340-049A DATE: January 4, 2018
      ORIGINATING OFFICE: FO:TO
      SUPERSEDES: Directive 3340-049
      REVIEW DATE: January 2021
      SUBJECT: BORDER SEARCH OF ELECTRONIC DEVICES
      i live in the 'no constitution zone' miles inland in the desert southwest. if i'm at an inland cbp checkpoint and they ask for my devices i will smash them.

  • @famcomp73
    @famcomp73 3 года назад +6

    mean while cops are stalking everyone commenting on this video lol.

    • @paulcrumley9756
      @paulcrumley9756 3 года назад

      At least one has already watched it. . .

    • @barefootjakejake7765
      @barefootjakejake7765 3 года назад

      Thats ok, as long as I put one in the ground same as me when I go out, we win

  • @darrenconway8117
    @darrenconway8117 7 месяцев назад

    I am from New Zealand, and there is a civil-forfeiture equivalent law here. The key difference is that the funds are not kept by the Police or Government. The funds from seized assets are funneled into rehabilitation programs for criminals. There is no financial incentive for Police or Govt. to apply civil forfeiture. Civil forfeiture is a proven tool for crime fighting without a financial incentive. As I see it from here, the root cause of abuse of civil forfeiture in the USA is policing for profit.

  • @altops4490
    @altops4490 3 года назад +2

    How can your constitutional rights be so easily subverted?

    • @AshkenaziChristian
      @AshkenaziChristian 3 года назад +2

      +altops You wrote, "How can your constitutional rights be so easily subverted?" Probably 95% of Americans don't realize we are being governed by the Patriot Act which usurped the U.S. Constitution when it was passed in 2001. The freemasons and eastern stars (female masons) who control our government (Biden, Trump, Pelosi, H. Clinton, et al.) know exactly what they are doing to subvert the American people to their own demise. Conspiracy theory, you say? Sorry bub, but's it's conspiracy FACT and if you can't see the devil in the details by now, "do not pass Go, do not collect $200."

  • @brianhawk1854
    @brianhawk1854 3 года назад

    Excellent research

  • @JH-gy7fn
    @JH-gy7fn 3 года назад +1

    Its just GREEDY people grabbing anything they can get their hands on.

  • @radicalleavemealone-ist7751
    @radicalleavemealone-ist7751 3 года назад +3

    water is wet

  • @freesk8
    @freesk8 3 года назад

    Good video! Thanks! :)

  • @blackerpanther3329
    @blackerpanther3329 3 года назад

    So what?

  • @commerce-usa
    @commerce-usa 3 года назад +1

    Disappointing, though not unexpected.

  • @eccod
    @eccod 3 года назад +2

    (Shocked Pikachu face)

  • @jefflong7568
    @jefflong7568 3 года назад +2

    I would find it hard just find anyone who would say that due process is not fundamental or common in our legal system as a matter of fact due process is required in our day and age receive the term used in the criminal civil and administrative law. So now let's look at what the definition of due process truly is as stated in our constitution the term comes from the magna Carta to the colonists to the writers of the declaration of Independence the Constitution and the Bill of Rights which were required by the people to ratify the Constitution and due process was understood as every man has a right to a jury trial of his peers no life when property shall be taken away from him without due process the first and only Jerry trial it was heard before The supreme Court in 1794 Justice John Jay stated in his instructions to the 12 man jury that you could old boys know that you can judge the facts and the law and that decision will be final but it would be nice if you judge the facts and leave the law to the judges. Now this was common law at the time of the colony and the founding of our country and they knew it without saying and if you look at judge waste of the South Carolina supreme Court in the case of zealstra versus corporation of Charleston South Carolina 1794 he gives the perfect definition of what due process actually means and it cannot be confused the way he States it and it comes from time and memorial it is a natural law of fundamental law the law of land and our supreme Court in our Congress has seem to forgotten this and it's time to change it back these administrative agencies do not have the right to write a law and judge law all cases that deal with your freedom or your purse as in money go to a jury of your peers not to an agency judge who is assigned by the agency themselves and gets paid by the agency and it's b******* and these cities states and other agencies that are seizing people's money because they can may not be able to be sued but the people that work for the government can personally be sued and held accountable for their actions under 42 1983 and there is no qualified immunity people had enough with the internet shoot I got a high school diploma that's it and I'm able to find this s*** it's time to wake up judge supreme Court Justice Roberts may not like the magna Carta but he's got to live with it and he's got to abide by it as it pertains to the Constitution United States as it was written and if they can't do that they need to be impeached and thrown out and if our congressman and our senators don't start abiding by it and giving these agencies power that they do not have the right to do online shall be written by the Congress no one else the word all means all you cannot give it to an agency to hear write your own laws cuz your own s*** I'll stop there I bramble enough but I'm sure you get the point you look up this stuff and start getting the word out start doing some first amendment auditing on the congressman and the supreme Court justices see what happens

    • @maebandy
      @maebandy 3 года назад

      New ruling allows border patrol to search, and COPY any or all info from your phone, or laptop anywhere within 100 miles of the border, no reasonable suspicion or warrant required. They actually specified no reasonable suspicion required, not my words.

    • @jefflong7568
      @jefflong7568 3 года назад

      @@maebandy do you know the name of the case. Would like to read it.

  • @jamestorline9475
    @jamestorline9475 3 года назад

    Patrolling for profit is a direct cause of civil unrest ,rebels,distrust in the system.bad attitudes just deserved and leads to crime.everyone has a budget.
    So that spills over causing robberys etc.for ppl.to stay in their budget. Creating this need for more cops.futhering the budget stress. Round n round.its sickning at best!

  • @lennykoss8777
    @lennykoss8777 3 года назад

    🤔

  • @icemike1
    @icemike1 3 года назад

    Is cash illegal 🚫

  • @kevinshelton2788
    @kevinshelton2788 3 года назад

    2a

  • @joshuatoler1965
    @joshuatoler1965 2 года назад

    having cash on you isn’t a crime the so called war on drugs is a laughable joke from the start there’s to much money involved

  • @marc-andreservant201
    @marc-andreservant201 3 года назад +1

    "Doesn't fight crime".
    Want to know why? Because you're punishing innocent people. Punishment only deters criminals if there is due process, otherwise why refrain from doing the crime if you're going to get the same punishment if you don't do it?

  • @CourtneyW-jr6fx
    @CourtneyW-jr6fx 11 месяцев назад

    #kaplan

  • @CourtneyW-jr6fx
    @CourtneyW-jr6fx 11 месяцев назад

    Ok scooter

  • @ruthannmarie7119
    @ruthannmarie7119 3 года назад +1

    Well it should help with trafficking. That's a lot of forfeiture

  • @maebandy
    @maebandy 3 года назад

    YOu know the police have technology that alerts when large amounts of cash pass sensors they place at strategic spots on roads, freeways, borders etc. The bills magnetic strips emit a frequency when there are enough of them bundled together(10,000 I think, I'll edit with the exact number). You know who knows this and circumvents these cash grabs, criminals. You know who doesn't, the kid who just sold two quads on craigslist or aunt bonnie coming home from the casino or any other citizen criminal enough not have heard they live on a toll road they'll pay to build twice. It's not an accident they know who to pull over and why they are so insistent beyond law or reason on searching their cars.

  • @nerdlingeeksly5192
    @nerdlingeeksly5192 3 года назад

    I still think civil forfeiture should be allowed for things like large drug busts but not for small thing like like a single person carrying an ounce of Meth for personal use.
    Take the money from the big fish who make a profit off crime I'm not the everyday small fries

    • @paulcrumley9756
      @paulcrumley9756 3 года назад +4

      I disagree - only CRIMINAL forfeiture meets constitutional muster, in my view. Impoundment could be an interim step - suspect money to be the result of crime, can temporarily impound it until investigations into the supposed crime are completed. If no crimes are charged, the lawful owner is restored fully - no fees, no charges, automatic return after a specified number of days. Impoundment may continue if there is a trial, and at the end of the trial the disposition of the property is part of a sentence, if convicted, or returned to its owner.

    • @nerdlingeeksly5192
      @nerdlingeeksly5192 3 года назад +1

      @@paulcrumley9756 if your found with several bricks of meth there is no court case needed, your guilty as hell

    • @paulcrumley9756
      @paulcrumley9756 3 года назад +2

      @@nerdlingeeksly5192 But you are still entitled to due process. And you will have your day in court. If the seized money is impounded, the seizing authority can wait until the justice system has run its course, then take lawful possession of it.

    • @nerdlingeeksly5192
      @nerdlingeeksly5192 3 года назад

      @@paulcrumley9756 yes that's what I'm saying civil forfeiture should still exist but only be executed after everything's been settled in court.
      I'm not advocating for the police taking your things without due process

    • @paulcrumley9756
      @paulcrumley9756 3 года назад +2

      @@nerdlingeeksly5192 Then it's not civil forfeiture, it's a consequence of a criminal conviction. A civil forfeiture considers the seized property to have been guilty of a crime, and since the property is not protected by the Constitution, it's fair game for seizure under far weaker rules than a criminal court imposes. "The history of civil forfeiture law in the United States can be traced to admiralty and customs law, when vessels found to contain contraband were seized and forfeited, oftentimes because the owner of the cargo or vessel was beyond the reach of U.S. courts." - Wikipedia.

  • @tommytwomommy
    @tommytwomommy 3 года назад +1

    Everyone knows what asset forfeiture is. You get busted for making illegal cash and they take your valuables.

    • @maebandy
      @maebandy 3 года назад

      then why does a city include asset forfeiture revenue into its budget? If its a benefit gained from the policing of criminal enterprise only then it should be a diminishing value, not one that increases each year to maintain integral police operations.

    • @maebandy
      @maebandy 3 года назад +1

      @Rascal E. Varmint depends on the topic, these days I find following it a bit scary, but since I'm still given the choice I can't give it up.

    • @maebandy
      @maebandy 3 года назад

      @Rascal E. Varmint logic reasons that if criminals know cops use sensors to ping large amounts of cash traveling down the road (they do), and cops know they know, leaves who to seize cash from? Law-abiding citizens aren't the occasional guppy getting caught up in the dragnet, they are the intended catch.