Drug Seizures in the Land of the Free

[repoman]

These prosecutors police and judges need to be fragged by us law abiding citizens:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2745842/Family-home-seized-son-arrested-selling-40-drugs-bizarre-Philadelphia-profits-crime-rules.html

A Philadelphia civil forfeiture law has reportedly allowed the government to take away citizens' homes - and much of it funds city prosecutors.
CBS Philadelphia reported on the story, saying homeowners Christos Sourovelis, Norys Hernandez and Doris Welch have filed a lawsuit, which 'claims property owners do not get to go before a judge before their property is seized, which violates the due process clause of the constitution.'
The home Sourovelis shares with his wife, Markela Sourovelis, was snatched 'because their son was caught selling $40 worth of drugs outside the house,' according to the affiliate station.

 

[barbos]

What about Texas where police assumes money they find in your car are from selling drugs and seize them automatically?

 

[Terrell]

Would be nice if the government had to actually prove that the individual whose property is being seized was actually guilty of a crime. I doubt that will happen, partially because it makes too much sense, and mostly because there is money to be gained by the government without having to raise taxes or fees. It's also easy to, at least in some cases, paint the person having their property stolen as a bad guy, or keep the knowledge of the government's theft of property relatively unknown to the public.


IMO the standard to seize a person's property should be as follows:

First, they must prove the defendant guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the crimes for which he was accused.

Second they must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, one or more of the following:

1. The person convicted of the crime was the owner of the property being seized, and the property being seized was used in the commission of the crime
2. The owner knew that the property was being used for the crime, for which the defendant was convicted, and gave his consent to use the property for the crime.
3. The property was the proceeds for the crime that the defendant was convicted of, and the defendant owned the property.

I doubt that will happen, but it's what I'd like to see the standards be. I'd also like to see this restricted in terms of the crimes for which it can be used. I'm not sure exactly where to draw the line, but I think minor offenses shouldn't result in property seizure. The defendant should have all the same rights he'd have in a criminal trial.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Interesting. So, you don't have to be the owner of the property, just be/reside there? I wonder where Philadelphia draws the line? I can't find the actual law. Familial relation, landlord/tenant, BFFs, priest/church?
$64 million total raked in over 11 years. If the city looses, I suppose it would bankrupt them. I wonder what that bell's worth?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I remember one legal ploy from the late 70s, where the cops would actually arrest the vehicle used in a suspected drug crime. Or the plane or the boat or whatever.

Vehicles don't have rights, so they had no access to a defense or any expectation of a speedy trial. So even if they couldn't successfully prosecute the drug dealer or drug runner or druggie they arrested, they did not have to return the vehicle, so they at least 'bothered' the sumbitch. There was no apparent concern that they might have arrested the car of an innocent citizen...

But the goal was to make it easier for the cops. As one Congressman told 60 Minutes, "It's a great way around the Constitutional Problem.'

 

[doubtingt]

I would be spectacularly amusing if someone made a list of all the properties owned by the DAs and legislators who support and enforce these laws and planted drugs there, then called the cops.

 

[James Brown]

I recall hearing about one man in prison for "Attempted Possession of Narcotics."

I guess that means you don't even have to have the drugs in hand. You just have to reach for them, I suppose, to win a one-year vacation in an Uncle Sam Resort.

 

[Bronzeage]

I recall hearing about one man in prison for "Attempted Possession of Narcotics."

I guess that means you don't even have to have the drugs in hand. You just have to reach for them, I suppose, to win a one-year vacation in an Uncle Sam Resort.

As the philosopher Mendacious said, "Attempted murder, what the fuck is that? You do it or you don't. Did anyone ever get a Nobel Prize for attempted physics?"

 

[Jarhyn]

I recall hearing about one man in prison for "Attempted Possession of Narcotics."

I guess that means you don't even have to have the drugs in hand. You just have to reach for them, I suppose, to win a one-year vacation in an Uncle Sam Resort.

As the philosopher Mendacious said, "Attempted murder, what the fuck is that? You do it or you don't. Did anyone ever get a Nobel Prize for attempted physics?"

This is sloppy thinking at best. An action is right or wrong when it is taken, not when the results are known. A bad gamble is a bad gamble whether you win or lose. It's the reason we have the social safety net, and the reason cops pull you over for reckless driving when nobody gets hurt. You do the best you can given the knowledge you have, and that's all that can ever be expected of anyone.

So no. Attempted murder is not ok, not is attempted posession of (dangerous substances). I do not, however, agree with the punishment, but rather because narcotics are not dangerous substances, other than to the guy who uses them.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I recall hearing about one man in prison for "Attempted Possession of Narcotics."

I guess that means you don't even have to have the drugs in hand. You just have to reach for them, I suppose, to win a one-year vacation in an Uncle Sam Resort.

The police here used to arrest youths (mostly Black) for "lurking with intent". Some of them actually had to show up for court for this made up charge. The defense attnys would go nuts on the prosecution and cops trying to get them to actually point to which statute "lurking with intent" fell under. The city finally put a stop to it after it got sued.

 

[Bronzeage]

As the philosopher Mendacious said, "Attempted murder, what the fuck is that? You do it or you don't. Did anyone ever get a Nobel Prize for attempted physics?"

This is sloppy thinking at best. An action is right or wrong when it is taken, not when the results are known. A bad gamble is a bad gamble whether you win or lose. It's the reason we have the social safety net, and the reason cops pull you over for reckless driving when nobody gets hurt. You do the best you can given the knowledge you have, and that's all that can ever be expected of anyone.

So no. Attempted murder is not ok, not is attempted posession of (dangerous substances). I do not, however, agree with the punishment, but rather because narcotics are not dangerous substances, other than to the guy who uses them.

I take it, you have never read the works of Mendacious. His arguments for his case are waterproof.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The drug war is dirty, dirty, dirty. Drug cops are scum.

 

[Jarhyn]

This is sloppy thinking at best. An action is right or wrong when it is taken, not when the results are known. A bad gamble is a bad gamble whether you win or lose. It's the reason we have the social safety net, and the reason cops pull you over for reckless driving when nobody gets hurt. You do the best you can given the knowledge you have, and that's all that can ever be expected of anyone.

So no. Attempted murder is not ok, not is attempted posession of (dangerous substances). I do not, however, agree with the punishment, but rather because narcotics are not dangerous substances, other than to the guy who uses them.

I take it, you have never read the works of Mendacious. His arguments for his case are waterproof.

Then it's good to know that everyone from the beginning of time to now are all terrible monsters, for all the accidental wrongs, and that winners of the lottery are paragons entirely deserving accolade and reward for buying lottery tickets, and that the guy who set a bus of school children on fire attempting to kill them for personal amusement, but where his action failed and in fact prevented the bus from being on a collapsed bridge which would have killed the kids anyway is a HERO.

Simply put, it's fairly apparent that such raw consequentialism fails.

 

[Bronzeage]

I take it, you have never read the works of Mendacious. His arguments for his case are waterproof.

Then it's good to know that everyone from the beginning of time to now are all terrible monsters, for all the accidental wrongs, and that winners of the lottery are paragons entirely deserving accolade and reward for buying lottery tickets, and that the guy who set a bus of school children on fire attempting to kill them for personal amusement, but where his action failed and in fact prevented the bus from being on a collapsed bridge which would have killed the kids anyway is a HERO.

Simply put, it's fairly apparent that such raw consequentialism fails.

Why is this a good thing to know? It sounds horrible. What on earth are you going on about?

 

[James Madison]

I recall hearing about one man in prison for "Attempted Possession of Narcotics."

I guess that means you don't even have to have the drugs in hand. You just have to reach for them, I suppose, to win a one-year vacation in an Uncle Sam Resort.

As the philosopher Mendacious said, "Attempted murder, what the fuck is that? You do it or you don't. Did anyone ever get a Nobel Prize for attempted physics?"

Comparing attempt crimes, which render illegal action/conduct constituting as a substantial step towards the commission of a crime with the required knowledge and intent to commit the crime, to the Nobel Prize and attempted physics doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

[Bronzeage]

As the philosopher Mendacious said, "Attempted murder, what the fuck is that? You do it or you don't. Did anyone ever get a Nobel Prize for attempted physics?"

Comparing attempt crimes, which render illegal action/conduct constituting as a substantial step towards the commission of a crime with the required knowledge and intent to commit the crime, to the Nobel Prize and attempted physics doesn't make a lot of sense.

I am surprised to see anyone who would choose the user name "James Madison" to be unfamiliar with the works of Mendacious. The original Madison could have quoted him in Latin.

 

[Emily Lake]

I am unfamiliar with the works of Mendacious. I also learn best from personal interaction. Rather than dropping hints, would you mind giving me a synopsis of what his positions are?

 

[Metaphor]

Bronzeage, are you just trying to get a rise out of some posters?

You cannot seriously believe that actions taken with the intent to harm, but fail to do so because of sheer dumb luck of circumstance or incompetence are less morally reprehensible than the actions that succeeded?

Although you have said that statutory rape victims should 'man up', so perhaps you seriously could believe it.

 

[James Madison]

Comparing attempt crimes, which render illegal action/conduct constituting as a substantial step towards the commission of a crime with the required knowledge and intent to commit the crime, to the Nobel Prize and attempted physics doesn't make a lot of sense.

I am surprised to see anyone who would choose the user name "James Madison" to be unfamiliar with the works of Mendacious. The original Madison could have quoted him in Latin.

The original James Madison would not have agreed with philosopher Mendacious' stupid argument regarding attempt crimes.