Civil forfeiture is a pretty big problem in this country.
It is a problem that exists in every state in the U.S.
What is the problem? Law enforcement (police, federal agencies) can seize property of anyone and keep it — if they assert that the property has some connection to crime.
Civil forfeiture disproportionately targets African-Americans unjustly — not just in Philadelphia — but everywhere African Americans have encounters with police (which is everywhere in the U.S).
The use of civil forfeiture is often in connection to low level drug offenses as police departments across the U.S have turned towards civil forfeiture as a means to finance their services. Republicans cut services in the state and then police use that as a justification to use civil forfeiture to fill budget gaps. The whole practice is evil and racist. There is little moral justification for civil forfeiture as it has deeply impacted communities all across the U.S.
Is civil asset forfeiture unpopular? You beat your sweet tooth it is. All across demographics of democrats, independents, and even republicans
— civil asset forfeiture is really unpopular.
It is really a unifying issue across multitudes of people. I don’t like my stuff taken unjustly by the police, nor does most of the U.S population. It is a wonderful point of bi-partisan comity across the ideological spectrum that asserts that people should have the right to be safe in their possessions and free from unjust searches and seizures.
A lot of people don’t know that the police can
take your stuff whenever they say it is connected to a crime. That’s a pretty big deal.
Whenever they suspect it’s connected to criminal activity. How did we get there? What legislation passed that allowed law enforcement to take such a stance, often employing the war on drugs as a justification for targeting communities of color, faith, and those just living.
Does anyone remember the Federal Crime Control Act of 1989? I was six years old so I honestly did not. The earliest debate of a crime bill I remember was the 90s and that was because my parents watched the news and talked about stuff.
What did the Federal Crime Control Act of 1989 do?
www.marijuanamoment.net/...
Among other things, the legislation would have expanded asset forfeiture authorities, required individuals charged for certain drug crimes to be held for sentencing or appeal rather than released on bail and mandated that the attorney general “aggressively use criminal, civil, and other equitable remedies…against drug offenders.”
It proposed authorizing the president to declare that a state or part of a state is a “drug disaster area,” which would be entitled to grants of up to $50 million “for any single drug-related emergency.”
Under the legislation, the Justice Department would establish a new division dedicated to maintaining or increasing “the level of enforcement activities with respect to criminal racketeering, narcotics trafficking, money laundering, asset forfeiture, international crime, and civil enforcement.” It would be directed to “establish at least 20 field offices of the Division to be known as Organized Crime and Dangerous Drug Strike Forces” and “at least ten International Drug Enforcement Teams.”
We can all agree that civil forfeiture has been abused and gone way beyond the intended justification for it.
I would find it very difficult to support a candidate in our primary that played a large role in writing the legislation that created the outcomes we see today in regards to the use of civil forfeiture and the overarching war on drugs that has had disastrous repercussions (creating the largest prison population on Earth).
That’s just me though.