again just one quick chek-up of something i have read and that i can hardly believe:

is it true that the police in the usa (or california, not stated clearly*) has the right to seize a person's property through asset forfeiture programs (what is that?) based on suspicion of drug activity, that the suspect thereafter is supposed to prove his innocence himself and even if this works out, the police can use 30% of his seized property for administrative purposes (again, what do they mean by this? isn't this expropriation?)?

i was really surprised when i read that, didn't think such things where possible. also the process of "plea bargaining" and it's frequency in use is somewhat scary.

* source: matthew b. robinson (appalachian state university), "mcdonaldization of america's police, courts and corrections"

regards
ungua

Yes, most unfortunately, that is the way it works... quite sad the way our country is, really.

You'd be surprised at the things policemen can do in many parts of the world. It's not publicized for good reasons too, but these guys wield pretty heavy power - sometimes extra-judicial too. Scary.

We don't call them the Schutzstaffel or Gestapo or KGB, but some police in the world stil have nearly as much power and without all tiresome fuss or publicity.

When it comes to drugs and taxes, due process has pretty much been thrown out the window here. In the case of taxes, the IRS has the authority to seize first and ask questions later as well.

Plea barganing really doesn't bother me as the defendant always has the right to refuse the bargain and go to trial. Sure, prosecutors are going to use as much leverage as they can to get the bargain accepted, but they can't force a defendant to accept the bargain.

To elaborate on all of this...Off the coast of Florida, or any US coastline for that matter, the DEA can cut your boat in half. If they suspsect you may be carrying drugs in the hull, they can legally tear your boat to pieces. If they don't find anything, you get a simple "sorry, it was a misunderstanding" and you're left with a pile of toothpicks.

wow, that sounds completely strange to a european's understanding of justice! of course i have heard the classic "america is totalitarian"-tune in this context, too, but i usually don't pay too much attention to this since few people ever use facts. i understand the positive intentions, but imho there are too many lines that have been crossed here...
in norway, it was recently decided - once more - that police men are not allowed to bare weapons in every day service. all kinds of damage or economical disadvantage to persons not guilty, but suspected of a crime will be refunded, as far as i know. the biggest "problem" in norway, regarding ideals of justice and due process, is that the police can keep you in costody without good enough evidents quite long when you're only a suspect. i don't remember how long, but in most european countries this period is limited to something counted in days or a few weeks.
of course, a defendant cannot be forced to plea bargaining. but imagine the social setting around him: i can imagine that there are a lot of people giving in for pressures, simply because of despair.

regards
ungua, enlightened

Not sure what you are referring to in your link (maternity leave?)

Rights vary state to state I would never try and compare the rights of Kalifornians to the rest of the U.S.

I'd agree with Hangdog that when it comes to drugs a lot of rights seem to get ignored. About a month ago I came across a link to this story, about a person that was suspected of drug traficing and had money seized with the main evidence being that he was carrying a large sum of money and couldn't explain it's purpose (he didn't speak english well).

As for specific rules it probably does depend a bit on where you are though but there's a lot of things that police can do related to seizing property that seem like they should be wrong. I've also heard of situations where anti-terrorism laws are getting applied to other situations like drugs which is giving even more power to the police.

RIght are being taken unfair advantage of all the time. By both police and citizens. The problem is, most folks don't understand what a "right" really is. For example, we have the Right to free speech. we do not (supposedly) have to worry about being jailed , tortured or killed for saying something the government doesn't approve of.

We do not have the right to walk up to soeone, tell him he is a jerk, and not expect him to punch us dead in the face. Rights do not give us the ability to trample others, only to keep ourselves safe. most pople push the limits and don't exercise responsibility or common sense in their words and actions.

This then extends to the world of politics where same said people, push to make laws and enforce regulations that are not really rights, just lame excuses to control other people.


Just my 2 cents,

Big Bear

Well said BigBearOmaha. With rights come responsibilities, and an awful lot of people don't want to acknowledge those responsibilities.

"It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them"

---Mark Twain

"The government takes the constation and uses it to wipe thier asses."

Nobodys going to charge me for the investigation if they didn't even find anything. Those fuckers can kiss my ass.

I think you do have the right to walk up to someone and call them a jerk. Meaning it's legal... that doesn't mean you still wont get punched in the face. But if they do punch you in the face, that's an assault charge. If you verbally abused them bad enough I'm sure they could get you for something too though.

Well,
The way I grew up, you have the right to call someone a jerk, sure it is legal. but, just because you don't deserve to get arrested doesn't mean you won't have a response. Be it a pop in the nose or they stick their tongue at you, what ever.

It's the idea that people get that they can walk up to anyone, say or do anything they like and walk away from that interaction without recourse or response from the other person involved.

In my neighborhood if you started it then called the police to press charges because you didn't win or you didn't like what they had to say in return, pretty much garnered you no respect at all. You were looked down upon as a coward and poor sport who likes to give but can't take it.

This country is chock full of self important people who think their opinion is the end all be all and are shocked when someone has the temerity to put them in their place.

Hence courts tied up with frivolous lawsuits and ridiculous petitioning of government because someone's feelings got hurt.


Now, I'm not saying there is not a time and place to use the tools of legal recourse when necessary, of course there are. But how many times are they mis-used and abused because people were not more considerate and responsible for their own words and actions?

Just my 2 cents,

Big Bear

and whoops...

regards
ungua