Message from @DrYuriMom
Discord ID: 515963785979101205
If there is no law against suicide, I'm still not sure how we can say due process was violated
Murder being the unlawful killing of a human being with intent beforehand.
Thus, there is no legal divide between suicide and murder.
That is determioned by the wording of the statute
Wait, so an attempted suicide is attempted murder?
So, if suicide is legal, then a man may kill himself without concern for due process?
I would say yes.
Then, if murder is legal, a man may kill another man without concern for due process.
I'm curious to see where you take this next. I won't bite but for sake of argument let's just suppose I did for entertainment value.
Laws must be applied equally and with logical consistency. Anything less is corruption and a breakdown of governance.
I'll agree to that
*looks around waiting for the trap to go off*
There is no trap, Cat. All I'm trying to do is to understand to the best of my ability and try to help others do the same.
Oh, cool. I like those debates. 😃
Debate discord
https://discord.gg/83jUmx
I personally detest civil forfeiture. It's a conflict of interest. If you must do it, the money should go to state coffers and totally bypass local government. Is there actually any debate here on this topic? I'm just curious.
Seems like a topic where right and left may actually agree.
Tbh I think that if your selling drugs out of your car, your license should be permanently revoked
Beyond what jail time you get
License, yeah. But your property? These laws have been used to take the houses of parents whose kids were selling drugs against their will or without their knowledge.
Your clearly a danger to others cause they could drive high
People drive without licenses all the time
Well, there are situations like that, but a home is different from a car
The question before the court will be if such automatic seizures that then directly benefit local government should be protected from the Constitutional prohibition against disproportionate fines
Or whether this practice is unconstitutional based on the 8th
Well its definitely unconstitutional
Thst much I agree on
This topic is fascinating to me. What good would taking someone's property be if the person is already going to jail?
I don't understand the question.
There is no gain from taking the car away from someone who wasn't doing the crime aswell. Like the story of the parent care being taken awa
By taking their property, you have their assets and can use them for yourself.
But that doesn't make sense to me. Maybe you'll help. I don't see why the government should be allowed to take ones car away if the car won't even be used by the dealer once in jail anyway
It sorta makes the situation worse for the people around the crime
Like the parents
I suppose the argument would be "this person has gained these assets through criminal activity, and thus has no legitimate claim to them."
"They will instead be taken by the state and used for government assets."
Like, I don't think the government is allowed to take your car if you get arrested for assault.
That is the basic argument. The issue is the property may not even be owned by the guilty person and it creates a perverse incentive for local police departments to take property that they immediately benefit directly from.