[ChrisMarshallNY]

Civil forfeiture is so ingrained into our "justice" system, that some jurisdictions even budget for it.

It's really, really easy for the government to justify it. All they need to do, is run out the one case in a hundred, where some death-dealing Walter White is stopped.

[pyuser583]

The “one case in a hundred” is when a ship is facing fees it can’t pay so the cargo is seized.

This belongs in maritime law, and nowhere else.

[metalliqaz]

Is there even one?

[mikeyouse]

Yes, of course. Civil forfeiture can be (and is!) abused, especially by local jurisdictions, but it's often a very boring tool used to facilitate victim restitution.

E.g. look at that famous chart showing 'the police steal more than criminals': https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2015/11/...

Nearly $2B of that 2014 total was JP Morgan having their funds 'civilly forfeit' to directly pay restitution to the Madoff victims (https://www.nathanslaw.com/articles/bank-to-pay-almost-2-bil...).

[metalliqaz]

No evidence there of a "walter white" being stopped.

Restitution can be ordered by a court without requiring a process to confiscate money without so much as a charge

[PaulDavisThe1st]

IIRC, the original point of civil forfeiture was to remove the possibility of the accused, between the start of a criminal suit (or even before) and the outcome of the trial, from moving their assets to somewhere beyond the reach of the court.

The goal itself seems reasonably (though not perfectly) noble.

The use of this ability in the real world though ... not so much.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

Oh, I'm sure there's plenty of real ones. Humans can be absolute trash, and most authoritarians have no problem, finding "justification" for their iron fists.

But we tend to think that unusual events are far more common than they actually are, and they use that to manufacture outrage and justification.

I don't remember what the term is, but this fallacy is a known one.