I personally think there should be a law that allows the government/police to confiscate property and money from people that have no legitimate proof of how it was acquired legally.
Let’s say for example:
You have a 20 year old kid who is a drug dealer, never worked in his life never paid taxes, and has no record of inheriting money or a lottery win for example. The police know he is a drug dealer but do not have enough to pin him for it (which is so often the case nowadays)
This kid is driving around in a very expensive car and has a nice place to live and a lot of spending money.
Personally I think the police should be able to confiscate his property and car etc. and unless the kid can show how he earned the money to pay for it all LEGITAMATLY then he does not get it back.
What do you think?
Too extreme? Could it possibly work? Are there any countries that do similar?
I personally think there should be a law that allows the government/police to confiscate property and money from people that have no legitimate proof of how it was acquired legally.
Let�??s say for example:
You have a 20 year old kid who is a drug dealer, never worked in his life never paid taxes, and has no record of inheriting money or a lottery win for example. The police know he is a drug dealer but do not have enough to pin him for it (which is so often the case nowadays)
This kid is driving around in a very expensive car and has a nice place to live and a lot of spending money.
Personally I think the police should be able to confiscate his property and car etc. and unless the kid can show how he earned the money to pay for it all LEGITAMATLY then he does not get it back.
What do you think?
Too extreme? Could it possibly work? Are there any countries that do similar?
Cheers
[/quote]
Wow. This is why I’m not going back in the military.
Too extreme? Could it possibly work? Are there any countries that do similar?
Cheers
[/quote]
Impossible, unworkable, ridiculous and too extreme.
I’ve got all kinds of stuff with no receipts, so I could never actually prove I bought them legally. Why should I have to keep all my receipts? What if I receive a gift that I couldn’t personally afford. I lose it? Someone working a low-wage job could potentially drive an expensive car if they manage their money properly and/or got a good deal on it. Why should they lose their car and then have to have every aspect of their finances scrutinized in order to get it back? Who does that help? Suppose I’m dating a cop’s daughter, and he doesn’t approve, he can just take all my stuff and make my life miserable on the grounds that I haven’t “proved” that I bought it all and can afford it. There is way too much room for abuse in a witch-hunt style system like this.
And then, once someone goes through all this nonsense and gets their stuff back, what’s to stop another cop from just confiscating it again and making them redo the entire thing?
I think “Innocent until proven guilty” was already mentioned. There’s a reason for that.
Too extreme? Could it possibly work? Are there any countries that do similar?
Cheers
Impossible, unworkable, ridiculous and too extreme.
I’ve got all kinds of stuff with no receipts, so I could never actually prove I bought them legally. Why should I have to keep all my receipts? What if I receive a gift that I couldn’t personally afford. I lose it? Someone working a low-wage job could potentially drive an expensive car if they manage their money properly and/or got a good deal on it. Why should they lose their car and then have to have every aspect of their finances scrutinized in order to get it back? Who does that help? Suppose I’m dating a cop’s daughter, and he doesn’t approve, he can just take all my stuff and make my life miserable on the grounds that I haven’t “proved” that I bought it all and can afford it. There is way too much room for abuse in a witch-hunt style system like this.
And then, once someone goes through all this nonsense and gets their stuff back, what’s to stop another cop from just confiscating it again and making them redo the entire thing?
I think “Innocent until proven guilty” was already mentioned. There’s a reason for that.[/quote]
You would not have to show receipts for everything you own. You can show that you earn a legitamate wage and that your possesions are reasonable to what you earn.
This law would not target everyman with stuff he may or may not have receipts for, but it will target the big time criminals that have great wealth with no legitamate proff of income.
I think ‘innocent until proven guilty’ is an outdated concept and it’s time to start getting radical and pro active.
I am suprised by that comment, most Americans seem happy to let that rule slide by for Iraq.
I cannot even begin to understand what this means.[/quote]
You (we) tried to prove Iraq guilty by finding WMD and when this was not possible you (we) attacked and invaded them anyway when they have not been ‘proven guilty of nothing’ (nothing worty of invasion)
So by the “innocent until proven guilty” rule Iraq as a country is innocent, but you (we) invaded tham anyway, hence letting that rule slide.
[quote]Electric_E wrote:
I am would like to know your thoughts on this.
I personally think there should be a law that allows the government/police to confiscate property and money from people that have no legitimate proof of how it was acquired legally.
Let’s say for example:
You have a 20 year old kid who is a drug dealer, never worked in his life never paid taxes, and has no record of inheriting money or a lottery win for example. The police know he is a drug dealer but do not have enough to pin him for it (which is so often the case nowadays)
This kid is driving around in a very expensive car and has a nice place to live and a lot of spending money.
Personally I think the police should be able to confiscate his property and car etc. and unless the kid can show how he earned the money to pay for it all LEGITAMATLY then he does not get it back.
What do you think?
Too extreme? Could it possibly work? Are there any countries that do similar?
Cheers
[/quote]
I understand what you are getting at but there are a lot of flaws with it:
It assumes guilt and so one must prove their innocents - it’s a lot harder to prove that you didn’t do something vs. proving that you did do something.
It empowers the government and the police too much. The police have been shown to make mistakes with the present system and the government has been shown to screw-up much of what it touches.
It would place unnecessary expense on people who need to prove that their stuff IS their stuff.
You would not have to show receipts for everything you own. You can show that you earn a legitamate wage and that your possesions are reasonable to what you earn.
This law would not target everyman with stuff he may or may not have receipts for, but it will target the big time criminals that have great wealth with no legitamate proff of income.
I think ‘innocent until proven guilty’ is an outdated concept and it’s time to start getting radical and pro active.
[/quote]
It’s not about who the law targets. If the police can confiscate property on suspicion, this creates a problem for everyone with property. Letting go of the receipt concept, the “legitimate wage” concept is still flawed. I know a guy making below average salary and driving a Porsche. This is because he buys no name food, lives in a cheap neighbourhood, watches a small screen CRT television, etc. and saved up for it, because it’s a priority for him. Looking at his salary and where he lives, it would make sense to take away his car based on your proposal, and he would then have no recourse, because how do you explain living in a shit house and making a weak-ass wage while driving a car? He has no record of the ways he turned a small salary into a nice car, he just did it.
Many people have things that they “shouldn’t” be able to afford at first glance. The government time and money spent analyzing every aspect of innocent people’s finances, as well as the personal costs to innocent folks who have their transportation or other possessions taken away and their lives scrutinized, can’t be justified at all by the supposed benefits of taking stuff from drug dealers.
In fact, now that I think about it, I seem to remember hearing that confiscation laws that are part of the US “War on Drugs” are routinely abused by police officers and departments. I’ll try to remember exactly where I heard/read this.
EDIT: Varqanir posted the links I was thinking about in a post on this page:
[quote]Electric_E wrote:
I am would like to know your thoughts on this.
I personally think there should be a law that allows the government/police to confiscate property and money from people that have no legitimate proof of how it was acquired legally.
Let’s say for example:
You have a 20 year old kid who is a drug dealer, never worked in his life never paid taxes, and has no record of inheriting money or a lottery win for example. The police know he is a drug dealer but do not have enough to pin him for it (which is so often the case nowadays)
This kid is driving around in a very expensive car and has a nice place to live and a lot of spending money.
Personally I think the police should be able to confiscate his property and car etc. and unless the kid can show how he earned the money to pay for it all LEGITAMATLY then he does not get it back.
What do you think?
Too extreme? Could it possibly work? Are there any countries that do similar?
Cheers
[/quote]
Don’t agree with it. I think your point is grounded in anger and envy at the wealth of someone who is living the high life off of illegal means. What you aren’t thinking of is this ‘kid’ driving a flashy car and living in a nice flat with lots of bling bling won’t likely have it for very long. Drug dealers don’t generally have a long and prosperous career and his lifestyle will sooner then later catch up with him.
Also, while they might have a lot of material flash at present drug dealers and other criminals aren’t building a savings or retirement or have health insurance or other perks. Again, by the ‘kids’ thirties he likely will be in a much less envious place. Likely incarcerated, destitute, or dead.
Let me guess you are pissed at some young dealer in your area who’s pulling a lot of tail and it pisses you off cause your living right, but don’t have the bling or tail to show for it like this kid?
Don’t worry about it my friend it will catch up with him.
[quote]Electric_E wrote:
I am would like to know your thoughts on this.
I personally think there should be a law that allows the government/police to confiscate property and money from people that have no legitimate proof of how it was acquired legally.
Let’s say for example:
You have a 20 year old kid who is a drug dealer, never worked in his life never paid taxes, and has no record of inheriting money or a lottery win for example. The police know he is a drug dealer but do not have enough to pin him for it (which is so often the case nowadays)
This kid is driving around in a very expensive car and has a nice place to live and a lot of spending money.
Personally I think the police should be able to confiscate his property and car etc. and unless the kid can show how he earned the money to pay for it all LEGITAMATLY then he does not get it back.
What do you think?
Too extreme? Could it possibly work? Are there any countries that do similar?
Cheers
[/quote]
Does this mean I will be forced to carry a receipt for the shoes on my feet?
I don’t like the use of the word “legitimate” because it implies that those who make the rules are always legitimate.
[quote]Anonymous Coward wrote:
In fact, now that I think about it, I seem to remember hearing that confiscation laws that are part of the US “War on Drugs” are routinely abused by police officers and departments. I’ll try to remember exactly where I heard/read this.
[/quote]
There are RICO provisions, IIRC, that allow the government to seize assets.
Another example: BostonBarrister posted an article (a while ago) about a local police department that entrapped a man traveling with his wife and daughter by enticing him to check on the well-being of an undercover officer posing as a prostitute, busted him for solicitation, and then seized his car (since it was used in the commission of a felony) and forced him to pay impound fees to get it back.
I have read that large purchases that do not seem supportable under one’s income can trigger audits. Of course, there is no presumption of innocence with the IRS, and they can seize assets relatively easily.
Of course, so much organized crime is the result of government intervention; if I were convinced that intelligence drove the government at all, I would believe that organized crime was the intentional effect of legislation as a way to justify draconian reforms.
As it stands, however, it seems we are merely overrun with incompetents.
I am suprised by that comment, most Americans seem happy to let that rule slide by for Iraq.
I cannot even begin to understand what this means.
You (we) tried to prove Iraq guilty by finding WMD and when this was not possible you (we) attacked and invaded them anyway when they have not been ‘proven guilty of nothing’ (nothing worty of invasion)
So by the “innocent until proven guilty” rule Iraq as a country is innocent, but you (we) invaded tham anyway, hence letting that rule slide.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
A country =/= an individual.[/quote]
There is no such thing as a country. It is just a collection of ideas to represent an abstract locality – the country of the USA, or any other country for that matter doesn’t even exist. The individual is real and exists and supersedes the notion of such collectivist ideals as a nation.
[quote]
Wartime =/= to peacetime.[/quote]
This has nothing to do with anything. The laws of the universe do not change during war.
[quote]Electric_E wrote:
I am would like to know your thoughts on this.
I personally think there should be a law that allows the government/police to confiscate property and money from people that have no legitimate proof of how it was acquired legally.
Let’s say for example:
You have a 20 year old kid who is a drug dealer, never worked in his life never paid taxes, and has no record of inheriting money or a lottery win for example. The police know he is a drug dealer but do not have enough to pin him for it (which is so often the case nowadays)
This kid is driving around in a very expensive car and has a nice place to live and a lot of spending money.
Personally I think the police should be able to confiscate his property and car etc. and unless the kid can show how he earned the money to pay for it all LEGITAMATLY then he does not get it back.
What do you think?
Too extreme? Could it possibly work? Are there any countries that do similar?
Cheers
[/quote]
What if you got 666 tatooed on your palm, or better yet, your forehead? Only then are you allowed to buy and sell.