Supremes curtail forfeitures

[GeorgiaDon 379]

Many people have complained that some police departments have turned civil forfeiture into a form of legalized robbery.  Today the Supreme Court ruled that taking property whose value greatly exceeds the applicable fine for an offense is a violation of the "excessive fines" clause of the 8th amendment, and that the whole of the 8th applies to the states (no cruel and unusual punishment, no excessive bail, no excessive fines)!  [Link to story]  The case involved a person who was convicted of conspiracy to sell a small amount of heroin to an undercover cop.  He was sentenced to a year's house arrest, probation, and a $1,200 fine, but then the police seized his $42,000 Land Rover that he bought with his father's life insurance payout.  As the maximum fine allowed by law for his offence was only $10,000 (and he was actually fined only $1,200), seizing a $42,000 piece of property was deemed an excessive fine.

Sometimes police would charge some kid with a minor drug offense and use that as an excuse to claim the parent's house so they could auction it off and keep the money [link].  Hopefully this decision will put an end to this practice.

Don

[SkyDekker 1,465]

The fact that this actually had to be a court case shows that the US at the state and municipal level is often not far removed from third world countries.

[Phil1111 1,156]

20 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

The fact that this actually had to be a court case shows that the US at the state and municipal level is often not far removed from third world countries.

Supreme Court strikes down mandatory victim surcharges

" The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that a law that sparked a near rebellion among judges is a form of cruel and unusual punishment, and therefore unconstitutional. ...

The case before the Supreme Court involved several impoverished offenders from Ontario and Quebec, including a blind, mentally ill woman with a monthly income of $831. She had pleaded guilty to assault and uttering threats, and faced a surcharge of $200. The appeal courts in Ontario and Quebec had ruled the mandatory surcharge constitutional."

The pecuniary proportionality of the ruling stands in Canada's favor. But the point of your argument is refuted by the fact the struck ruling was a federal statute.

[gowlerk 2,266]

That was a provision of a  "criminal law reform" effort mounted by the "Harper Government" that for a few years held the power of a majority position in our House of Commons. It was controversial and several of it's provisions have been struck down by the courts or changed by amendments in the current House. It was not a long standing statute.

[rushmc 23]

It was too damn long! I know someone who is a professional Gambler. He got stopped on the interstate and had $10,000 cash. They did a sample of it and it had cocaine on it whicha lot of money does. They confiscated is cash and his vehicle and put him in jail. He could prove where the money camr from but they didn't care.

 

Way too long a coming

[ryoder 1,590]

It's about goddamned time!!!

LEO's are supposed to be enforcing the law, not acting as armed thugs committing robbery.

It is also satisfying that the SCOTUS decision was unanimous.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

16 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

Supreme Court strikes down mandatory victim surcharges

" The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that a law that sparked a near rebellion among judges is a form of cruel and unusual punishment, and therefore unconstitutional. ...

The case before the Supreme Court involved several impoverished offenders from Ontario and Quebec, including a blind, mentally ill woman with a monthly income of $831. She had pleaded guilty to assault and uttering threats, and faced a surcharge of $200. The appeal courts in Ontario and Quebec had ruled the mandatory surcharge constitutional."

The pecuniary proportionality of the ruling stands in Canada's favor. But the point of your argument is refuted by the fact the struck ruling was a federal statute.

Yeah that isn't even close to being the same thing.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

More evidence that at the State and Municipal level the US is pretty close to a third world country.

[gowlerk 2,266]

17 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

More evidence that at the State and Municipal level the US is pretty close to a third world country.

Really! Held without bond. That's going to become a cause célèbre quickly.

[jakee 1,583]

2 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

More evidence that at the State and Municipal level the US is pretty close to a third world country.

That's outrageous.

 

Land of the free to do what The Man tells you.

[Coreece 190]

5 hours ago, jakee said:

8 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

More evidence that at the State and Municipal level the US is pretty close to a third world country.

That's outrageous.

 

Land of the free to do what The Man tells you.

Looks like the judge released  her on a PR bond.  Apparently "he didn't understand the charge stemmed from a political protest when he ordered Sutherland jailed."   

So what then, it's ok to deny bail for showing a boob in public as long as it's not political?

I wonder if it's common practice to deny bail for misdemeanor cases when the defendant lives out of state?

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Judge-Reverses-Bail-Denial-for-ERA-Activist-Who-Exposed-Breast-in-Imitation-of-Virginia-Flag-506165551.html

[SkyDekker 1,465]

11 hours ago, Coreece said:

Looks like the judge released  her on a PR bond.  Apparently "he didn't understand the charge stemmed from a political protest when he ordered Sutherland jailed."   

So what then, it's ok to deny bail for showing a boob in public as long as it's not political?

I wonder if it's common practice to deny bail for misdemeanor cases when the defendant lives out of state?

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Judge-Reverses-Bail-Denial-for-ERA-Activist-Who-Exposed-Breast-in-Imitation-of-Virginia-Flag-506165551.html

Why is a woman getting arrested for showing a boob in the first place? Has the US succumbed to Sharia Law, cause this seems to really only take place in predominantly Muslim countries.

[Coreece 190]

4 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Why is a woman getting arrested for showing a boob in the first place?

I agree.  Each boob should be judged on it's own merit.  A boob lacking elasticity and melanin among other features should be reduced to a civil infraction, while more aesthetically pleasing boobs should be celebrated as a civil service.

[gowlerk 2,266]

1 minute ago, Coreece said:

I agree.  Each boob should be judged on it's own merit.  A boob lacking elasticity and melanin among other features should be reduced to a civil infraction, while more aesthetically pleasing boobs should be celebrated as a civil service.

Which gets at the heart of why so many cultures and nations have all sorts of restrictive laws and customs about covering up female bodies. Men just can't cope or act appropriately. So they take it out on the women by controlling them. This is the essence of misogyny. 

[SkyDekker 1,465]

58 minutes ago, Coreece said:

I agree.  Each boob should be judged on it's own merit.  A boob lacking elasticity and melanin among other features should be reduced to a civil infraction, while more aesthetically pleasing boobs should be celebrated as a civil service.

Thank you for proving my point, that at the state and municipal level the US is close to a third world country, with many supporting these mentalities.

[Coreece 190]

21 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

I agree.  Each boob should be judged on it's own merit.  A boob lacking elasticity and melanin among other features should be reduced to a civil infraction, while more aesthetically pleasing boobs should be celebrated as a civil service.

Thank you for proving my point, that at the state and municipal level the US is close to a third world country, with many supporting these mentalities.

The only thing that it proved was that you lack a sense of humor. 

[gowlerk 2,266]

16 minutes ago, Coreece said:

The only thing that it proved was that you lack a sense of humor. 

The humour page is in Bonfire! This page is for heavy meaningful discussion and mud slinging.

[Coreece 190]

8 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

26 minutes ago, Coreece said:

The only thing that it proved was that you lack a sense of humor. 

The humour page is in Bonfire! This page is for heavy meaningful discussion and mud slinging.

My bad.

50 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

the state and municipal level the US is close to a third world country

Nonsense, didn't you ever see those women in the national geographic magazines when you were a kid?

Edited February 22, 2019 by Coreece

[jakee 1,583]

18 hours ago, Coreece said:

Looks like the judge released  her on a PR bond.  Apparently "he didn't understand the charge stemmed from a political protest when he ordered Sutherland jailed."   

So what then, it's ok to deny bail for showing a boob in public as long as it's not political?

Wow, that is just about the worst excuse for being wrong, isn't it? Just keep digging that hole deeper, judge! Now, aside from the absurd sexism side of it, he originally ordered her to be held without bail until her trial, which was just over a month away. Is it even possible that, if she was found guilty, the sentence would meet or exceed a month in prison?

 

(And in the meantime, billionaire old white man Robert Kraft has been charged with misdemeanour solicitation. He is, surprise surprise, not in jail )

[Coreece 190]

23 minutes ago, jakee said:

aside from the absurd sexism side of it, he originally ordered her to be held without bail until her trial, which was just over a month away. Is it even possible that, if she was found guilty, the sentence would meet or exceed a month in prison?

First time misdemeanors are usually punishable by up to 90 days in the county jail, but it's extremely rare to actually get the full 90.  I don't know if it's ever even happened before.  From my experience most people usually plea out and just pay the fines, do community service and/or go on probation.  If there's any jail time, it's most likely 5-10 days.  Maybe  more depending on the offense and if it was violent or not.

However, I was always under the impression that if you go to trial and lose instead of taking a plea, then the penalty would be a bit stiffer, perhaps even the maximum.

 

23 minutes ago, jakee said:

(And in the meantime, billionaire old white man Robert Kraft has been charged with misdemeanour solicitation. He is, surprise surprise, not in jail )

Well, he's rich and denied the claim.  We don't know what happened, so he gets to be innocent until proven guilty.

This woman had a full boob, nipple and all just hanging out in the public square.  Everybody saw it, so clearly she's guilty as sin!

 

Edited February 22, 2019 by Coreece

[Coreece 190]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

20 hours ago, Coreece said:

Looks like the judge released  her on a PR bond.  Apparently "he didn't understand the charge stemmed from a political protest when he ordered Sutherland jailed."   

So what then, it's ok to deny bail for showing a boob in public as long as it's not political?

Wow, that is just about the worst excuse for being wrong, isn't it?  Just keep digging that hole deeper, judge!

Right.  One thing I forgot to add is that this judge is denying bail and he doesn't even understand the details of the case?

[jakee 1,583]

10 hours ago, Coreece said:

Well, he's rich and denied the claim.  We don't know what happened, so he gets to be innocent until proven guilty.

This woman had a full boob, nipple and all just hanging out in the public square.  Everybody saw it, so clearly she's guilty as sin!

The woman hasn't had a trial yet, so she gets to be innocent until as well. And apparently the police had video cameras setup throughout the brothel. They clearly saw him doing a lot more than just hanging out!

[Coreece 190]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

The woman hasn't had a trial yet, so she gets to be innocent until as well.

Well ya, now she does.  But before this case received all the negative press, she was to remain locked up for over a month before her trial, which would've far exceeded any penalty that she would've likely received - so there really was no  presumption of innocence, at least a meaningful one anyway.

 

1 hour ago, jakee said:

And apparently the police had video cameras setup throughout the brothel. They clearly saw him doing a lot more than just hanging out!

Do you really trust the police?  Maybe they just hate the patriots.  And it wasn't a brothel, it was a day spa.  It's perfectly normal for billionaires to hang out at strip mall massage parlors!

[Phil1111 1,156]

3 hours ago, jakee said:

The woman hasn't had a trial yet, so she gets to be innocent until as well. And apparently the police had video cameras setup throughout the brothel. They clearly saw him doing a lot more than just hanging out!

Facetious remarks, deliberate ironic statements, intermingled with disjointed, nonsensical arguments. Are going to be a continual challenge for you in these debates with Coreece.

Its akin to following trump when he goes on a rambling rant. At least when Marc posts something you know where he's coming from.His ideas are like railway tracks coming from the FOX/Breitbart disinformation cloud.

Take a Diazepam.Good luck.

Meanwhile there is a man who is the polar opposite of trump. He believes in the US constitution. Fights against corruption and politicians who play games with the law.

" he’s competitive as hell. A former college athlete, he has an imposing build—his shoulders and biceps fill out his pinstripe suit jackets—without being threatening. He’s kind. Warm. Likable. Charming. ...

But you won’t hear any bragging from Racine: “I was raised, educated and coached to not highlight my role in team efforts.” "

Edited February 23, 2019 by Phil1111

[Coreece 190]

2 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

Facetious remarks, deliberate ironic statements

I'll admit that my attempt at satire was untimely and executed rather poorly.  My apologies for being selfishly entertained.

 

2 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

At least when Marc posts something you know where he's coming from.  His ideas are like railway tracks coming from the FOX/Breitbart disinformation cloud.

That's fine.  You guys are both unwavering in your political partisanship and forever bound to your list of talking points.  And there's nothing inherently wrong with that on the surface.  Having a stable base of opposing political affiliations is essential for a democracy and it's continued success, especially when we're at our weakest.

However, one important thing that we can all rally around is criminal justice reform, so it's probably not in our best interest to go out of our way to pick fights when dealing with one of the most bipartisan issues facing the country today.