OK. So here's the deal.
I only have a rudimentary understanding of these sorts of proceedings, but basically, police departments get the proceeds of seized assets from suspected criminals. Why is this is so bad? Well,
citationThe gambit is set: police are using this as a way for quick and easy money. Some might argue that the people were in fact guilty, or that they ought to contest these seizures. However:
It's evident that this is an onerous process to go through, and one that might not result in justice for the aggrieved party.
As for why I argue for establishing a limit on the proceeds that police departments can receive:
citationI won't paraphrase the whole story in the article. However, it seems obvious that entitling police departments to the fruits of asset seizures creates a perverse incentive to enforce the law gratuitously.
Want to fund police departments? Here's how: appropriate money. But the status quo is arbitrary, regressive, and an affront to justice.
