Spyke
LOGIC💣
lemmy.world

As Reason's Jacob Sullum reported, Reps. Tim Walberg (R‒Mich.) and Jamie Raskin (D‒Md.) reintroduced the FAIR Act in March. The legislation includes several major reforms to civil asset forfeiture at the federal level, including eliminating the equitable sharing fund.

"It makes me feel more resolved to get this legislation passed," Walberg told WCNC. "At least the thought can come in people's minds, they changed their approach, and they rushed it more quickly in order to get that $69,000. It really ended up hurting the victim."

The government's actions "really ended up hurting the victim." That really just about sums up this entire story, and civil forfeiture in general. It's mostly used to hurt people, not to seek justice.

93
rifugee
lemmy.world

I don't understand how any reasonable judge could think that civil forfeiture does not violate the 4th amendment. I mean, keeping the government from just taking your shit is one of the primary reasons for the amendment, right?

17
Doug Hollandreply
lemmy.world

Sorry to be so pessimistic, but the Bill of Rights is a work of fiction.

It's excellent fiction, and I love it, but any government employee is free to violate any of the rights we're told we have. When they do, they'll face consequences only very, very rarely, and only if you're willing and financially able to take it to court. Even then, you'll only 'win' if you luck into a sympathetic judge.

And whatever the verdict, when you needed your rights they weren't there.

10
Etterra
lemmy.world

And then the cops wonder why honest people would ever complain about civil forfeiture. The police are organized crime, never forget that.

12

You reached the end