The expression "this is why we can't have nice things" comes to mind. Like their FISA powers, spying on communications of journalists with surveillance powers, political abuses within the IRS, etc the government has massively abused asset forfeiture as well and we should return to a liberty centric mindset. No forfeiture without conviction by a jury.
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."
The government has proven they aren't angels we can trust.
It dates back to British maritime law from the 1600s and pirate ships on the open sea. When the owner of the ship was unknown and likely residing halfway around the world, the thinking was just seize the ship and charge the property itself with the crime. Obviously this makes zero sense when applied to an American citizen driving their car down a public highway with some cash in their possession, but here we are.
Because cops get to drive around in sports cars repainted black and white. Every Corvette squad car you've ever seen out on the highway is one of those. I'd bet money that some large fraction of the world's largest television screens reside within police station break rooms, too.
Police unions don't play around either. If a politician were to play hardball, some small town or another would just go without a police force at all until it cried uncle, anyone at the state level trying it would simply see insane amounts of cash dumped on their rivals' campaigns and lose, and Congress can't even muster up the ambition to pass feel-good-do-nothing resolutions on its best day, not even one of which we've had since either of us became adults.
The argument as to why it's constitutional is something like this: The constitution keeps the government from taking your stuff. This was never your stuff, it was stuff you just happened to have in your possession. Therefore, there should be a civil trial over ownership of this stuff to determine whose it is, and if it's not yours the government can take it.
Because politicians trust politicians to use it responsibly or failing that, to use it where necessary
Left/right politicians will lean in the generally expected directions on what things they would stop with it and what ways they would responsibly use the proceeds, but reasonable people could be convinced that the only problem with civil asset forfeiture is that it doesn't protect the innocent from its consequences -- and that's not too far off the mark, but that it can be used without having to wait for its victims to have exhausted the appeals process to it at first is the cancer from which all its other ills originate
Wouldn't much of the perverse incentive be fixed if the assets were transferred to some other organization, such as the central state or federal budget.
This already happens sometimes. The local PD will seize money, 'transfer' it to the the state or federal government, and then claim "Well, we can't give you the money back, we don't have it anymore. You'll have to sue the other guys instead." And of course frequently in such situations the state or the feds will say that you have no standing to sue them, since they didn't take your money, so you have to sue the PD. Enjoy being pulled over every other week by your local PD because you _dared_ to even challenge them legally.
It doesn't really matter where the assets end up. The perverse incentive is that the assets can be trivially seized with no consequences at very little cost to the power structures doing the seizing. What is the incentive for a person or group to stop stealing when there is no possibility for any negative consequences to them? Morals, ethics? There are plenty of people in positions of power who would get a kick out of causing someone else pain and suffering because they're bored.
TIs the decision of where to send the money made on a per-case basis by the local PD?
If so, that sounds like just one more option to seize for profit or harass if the case is too weak.
I still think if the only option is to transfer, the general incentive structure is improved. Stealing with profit motive plus harassment is worse than stealing just for harassment.
I also think in general, to effect change, to campaign for a single thing, easily explained, is the most successful approach.
The funds usually go into a slush fund that benefits the PD while not being under its direct control.
Removing the financial incentive for law enforcement to abuse CAF would be an improvement. You'd need to ban any bonus to individual officers for CAF, and make sure 0 funds make their way bank to the PD (i.e. no budget increases for CAF activities).
But I think it would a better idea and more effective to eliminate Civil Asset forfeiture and only allow Criminal asset forfeiture. If you think the funds are illegal, charge someone and prove it.
How would you stop that from being re-invested back into the police force? If a state knows that they get $50 million from assets seized by the police, there's a very strong incentive for them to approve that $25 million budget increase the police force requested.
The article also suggests that the law is just inherently unjust: "Objects do not commit crimes: people do." Also: "Since civil forfeiture requires less evidence and offers fewer protections than criminal forfeiture, the former is more vulnerable to abuse than the latter."
As for your first paragraph, the feedback loop will be much longer both in time (state budgets) and in distance - the risk of the proceeds ever directly benefitting the sheriff, officer or precinct is very low.
As for the second argument, I agree, it can be used to harass people.
Punitive fines, that is, those which are meant to create a change in behavior rather than compensate for a loss, should be destroyed. If an entity is fined $10 million, collect the money and "destroy" it. The money supply decreases by $10 million and everyone is ever so slightly wealthier at the expense of the offending party. Note that this is separate from fines meant to compensate a victim for their loss and suffering. It's only for the punitive function of a fine.
Looks like a perfect opportunity for a citizen's dividend. Anything that is taken is put into a pot. After a certain time all of that is given back equal to all citizens.
That upplays the financial incentives and downplays the psychological incentives. Cops seize stuff not only to have the money or shiny stuff, but also for the rare trill of punishing "bad people". In their job it is extremely rare to get the "job accomplished" endorphins, they see too many "bad people" (either real criminals or perceived as so by the cop) go free. So they create scenarios in their head about how the person is a criminal and then get the immediate endorphins for punishing the "criminal", restoring cosmic balance to their world. It is the old "do action -> get endorphins" mechanism, and if allowed cops will continue doing it even if you remove the direct monetary incentive.
That just shifts the incentive up thee governance hierarchy a little bit. The only way to remove it would be to prevent the government from both benefitting from it in any way, or controlling who else benefits from it. Something like donating the proceeds to randomly chosen 501c3s. The same perverse incentive exists for all other government issued financial penalties as well, they're just seen as less unjust.
Check your local laws. Many state and local law enforcement was relying on the federal laws because their local laws didn't allow this already (or did but in restricted from and so using the federal laws was the easy option). But many is not all and I have no idea what state you might live in.
The problem is stretching, and often exceeding, the protections of the system to achieve some "good".
They push things into civil court since you lack protections there, such as no right to an attorney and ex parte hearing. Can't prove a crime was committed - civil asset forfeiture. Can prove conspiracy or threats - red flag laws. TX abortion law, CA proposed gun law based on TX abortion law, etc. We'll see plenty more of this.
Readit News
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."
The government has proven they aren't angels we can trust.
Police unions don't play around either. If a politician were to play hardball, some small town or another would just go without a police force at all until it cried uncle, anyone at the state level trying it would simply see insane amounts of cash dumped on their rivals' campaigns and lose, and Congress can't even muster up the ambition to pass feel-good-do-nothing resolutions on its best day, not even one of which we've had since either of us became adults.
Left/right politicians will lean in the generally expected directions on what things they would stop with it and what ways they would responsibly use the proceeds, but reasonable people could be convinced that the only problem with civil asset forfeiture is that it doesn't protect the innocent from its consequences -- and that's not too far off the mark, but that it can be used without having to wait for its victims to have exhausted the appeals process to it at first is the cancer from which all its other ills originate
It doesn't really matter where the assets end up. The perverse incentive is that the assets can be trivially seized with no consequences at very little cost to the power structures doing the seizing. What is the incentive for a person or group to stop stealing when there is no possibility for any negative consequences to them? Morals, ethics? There are plenty of people in positions of power who would get a kick out of causing someone else pain and suffering because they're bored.
If so, that sounds like just one more option to seize for profit or harass if the case is too weak.
I still think if the only option is to transfer, the general incentive structure is improved. Stealing with profit motive plus harassment is worse than stealing just for harassment.
I also think in general, to effect change, to campaign for a single thing, easily explained, is the most successful approach.
Removing the financial incentive for law enforcement to abuse CAF would be an improvement. You'd need to ban any bonus to individual officers for CAF, and make sure 0 funds make their way bank to the PD (i.e. no budget increases for CAF activities).
But I think it would a better idea and more effective to eliminate Civil Asset forfeiture and only allow Criminal asset forfeiture. If you think the funds are illegal, charge someone and prove it.
The article also suggests that the law is just inherently unjust: "Objects do not commit crimes: people do." Also: "Since civil forfeiture requires less evidence and offers fewer protections than criminal forfeiture, the former is more vulnerable to abuse than the latter."
As for the second argument, I agree, it can be used to harass people.
the time this transfer is formalized, the powers that be will start reporting on it.
And when something is reported on and makes someone promoted, you can bet it will be pursued aggresively
They push things into civil court since you lack protections there, such as no right to an attorney and ex parte hearing. Can't prove a crime was committed - civil asset forfeiture. Can prove conspiracy or threats - red flag laws. TX abortion law, CA proposed gun law based on TX abortion law, etc. We'll see plenty more of this.