An article in our Herald Sun newspaper about new laws: http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,4516961%5E661,00.html
Nobody's ever interested in whats happening in australia, except the australians, are they Adam Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Nah, nobody cares about our little country.. *sniff* But I agree, our courts are too damn soft on criminals at the moment.
Vague notes Unfortunately, at shortly after 1.00 PDT, the story is unavailable at the site. I'll give it another whirl later. However, the basic point of it mentioned in the topic post sounds like what we call Civil Asset Forfeiture. Some data is available at the DRCNet Week On-Line archives, though the link list is scattered through the archive, and can be found by searching the page for "forfeiture"; the link list would be long to say the least. CAF sounded like a good idea, but the fact is that it sucked terribly in this country. In the end, accused criminals were suffering the seizure of their assets, winning their acquittals in court, and being denied the return of their property. CAF turned out to be a profiteering racket in this country, seizing houses and cars and cash, lacking proper accounting, and denying citizens of their property without due process. Furthermore, CAF hit another snag when extended beyond its proper scope. The point of CAF was to strip from drug dealers the profits of their dubious trade. However, CAF licensed such policies as "Zero Tolerance", by which the infamous yacht Monkey Business (center of the 1984 Gary Hart downfall) would eventually be confiscated after a single marijuana roach was discovered in the waste tanks from the head. The roach weighed less than a gram. In the end, people who made legitimate livings doing other things would lose their property for possessing drugs, even though no evidence existed that the property was obtained from the profits of selling drugs. CAF turned into a massive legal nightmare, and has been steadily undergoing massive changes in this country. However, having been unable to read the story by demerit of its absence, I can't say this is what's about to take place in Australia. I'll look around and see what I can find. In the meantime, good luck with that. It is also worth noting, in relation to the American CAF fiasco, that the entirety of the US Constitution got thrown in the shredder sometime during the Drug War. The legal standards which American law enforcement applies to the Drug War exist nowhere else in the country. (To wit, Apprendi v. New Jersey undid a certain sentencing guideline that applied to a "hate crime" in a firearms case. The decision was widely hailed, and the now-infamous Ninth Circuit began immediately applying Apprendi to drug cases, where people had been screaming themselves blue over this sentencing issue. It wasn't worth fixing the problem for pot smokers, but you get a guy shooting his gun at black people and telling the officers that he's trying to scare all the niggers, and now we've got a case where we ought to consider sentencing irregularities ....) So good luck to Australia on this one. If all goes well, the government might even turn a profit from the prosecution industry. It's hard, but if you cut the books just right--e.g. case-by-case--it is possible. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/co...255E661,00.html the link dont work cause the artical has been removed. but, if you mean strip them of property, wont this make theives go out and steal to get something to replace them? make drug dealers go out to sell more drugs to get money to buy assets ? if i'm missing the point, please tell me. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You are yes... generally speaking, if they've been stripped of assets that means they've been caught. If they've been caught, they've been found guilty, and THEN stripped of their assets. If they're guilty, they're in jail. On balance, that usually means they're not really in a position to be out doing criminal stuff. It also means they have no ill-gotten gains to look forward to when our ridiculously inadequate sentencing system lets them out in two years. Would you rather they sat in prison for a couple of years and then got out, went home (fully paid for), and drove around celebrating their freedom in that BMW they bought off the proceeds of your daughter's drug addiction?
this happens in real life anyway and why do drug dealers always own bmws on tv? (sorry, that hasnt anything to do with anything) if you strip them of assets then they get released the first thing they will do is steal again or sell drugs or whatever to get their assets back if the worst they can do is put them in jail which means their own private rooms with pool tables tvs etc.. i think if they are in jail the state should make them work for nothing like the slave labour camps they had in the ussr (maybe not as extreme as this)-only do this though if there is undisbuted evidence to prove they were guilty-then see if they think twice about stealing again (or whatever). this may sound really extreme but i think it is a good deterant and this means that they are paying for themselves to be in there instead of the tax payer funding them.
Oh I get it.. so, taking all their assets means that all these people let back out into society will become thieves again instead of the peaceful law-abiding citizens they always become upon being set free. And of course, since taking their assets means absolutely nothing to these people, because they can always get more, we should let them keep the stuff they've already stolen, it won't make any difference. Have I got it right? BTW... "i think if they are in jail the state should make them work for nothing like the slave labour camps they had in the ussr (maybe not as extreme as this)-only do this though if there is undisbuted evidence to prove they were guilty-then see if they think twice about stealing again (or whatever). " I agree with you on this bit, but don't see that it has relevance here. __________________
maybe not of relevance on this thread but i am just pointing out there should be more of a deterant against these people than simply stripping them of assets. By the way i did not say anywhere that i think not taking their assets away will make them less likely to stay criminals although maybe it looked like this but it wasnt intended, although you are implying here: that if they take their assets away they will stop being criminals. jail does not rehabilitate the majority of criminals- they simply re-offend. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Clearing the road ahead .... Actually, I'll defer to another point: This is essentially the crux of it. Fine with me if the forfeiture comes after conviction. At that point, we are reduced to only one primary concern: • The concern that accused/not-convicted persons will be stripped of their assets is put to rest by Squid's assertions. As noted, I cannot say that what CAF meant in the US is the same as what it will mean in Australia. • Beyond that, the only remaining concern is whether or not the state has to show that the drug dealing created the wealth. Can you imagine Rupert Murdoch losing his empire because he smoked a joint and his life assets were seized? Though inflated, such things have happened in the US under asset forfeiture laws. So as long as the government isn't stripping people's legitimately-owned property in drug-related cases, it seems to be an issue of choice. Of course, given the nature of the Drug War, I generally oppose all drug-related asset forfeiture. Even into the Afghani Bush War, opiates were still available on the market at fairly standard prices. I had some beautiful opium somewhere in there that a friend acquired at random chance--that's how much of an impact we're making on the opiate black market by destroying the leading producer of black-market opium. But another thing to consider in this is the Lebanese situation; anyone who did drugs in the 1970s remembers Lebanese hash; I've only come across it once in my 11 years of being a stoner that I know of, and beyond that it's a line in a Frampton song. But recently the Lebanese government dropped its prohibitions against growing marijuana. Well, sort of. But as it became apparent that, lacking any other profitable (e.g. financially sustaining) crop, local farmers started planting marijuana for hashish, and the government seems to be allowing that because at least the people have something to sell for food and clothing and shelter. In either case, the profitability of drugs--what makes the drugs dealers rich--is the fact that they're operating a black market. Australia has taken shite from the US in recent years for attempting progressive ideas in the drug situation. The only real question to ask is what asset forfeiture solves. It doesn't solve much, but if the government makes a buck prosecuting it, I understand why people go forward with it. But in the meantime, when I look at Australia's politicians, I have no reason to believe them dishonest, right? So best of luck. Maybe it won't turn into the ridiculous disaster the American asset forfeiture experience proved to be. In a corruption-free nation like Australia, it might just work. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
i hope your being sarcastic here. no nation is corruption free especialy the capitalist variety. Maybe in australia it isnt as visible as it is else where in the world but there is still corruption- that i can guarentee you of.
Re: Clearing the road ahead .... Two things... Firstly, I dont give a rats ass whether the drug dealing created the wealth or not. The point is, by dealing drugs, these people have forfeited the right to live in comfort in society after their time is up. I don't understand the basis for your concern here. Secondly, the emphasis here is on DEALERS losing assets... not someone who smoked a joint. Dont get all hysterical.
Re: Clearing the road ahead .... Ours are just as dishonest as yours (conjecture)... however, I don't see the relevance... what, you think they're going to end up with the confiscated BMW's? Do we really care WHERE the revenue ends up... as long as the scum don't have it?
Yes indeed. Part of the purpose of seizing the assets of criminals is to discourage them. If they earn $1,000,000 per year through crime, they simply won't care about spenind 2 years in prison if they can walk out and go home to their luxury penthouse. However, if that luxury is taken away, they have much less incentive to commit crimes.
once a criminal, nearly always will be a criminal. Toughen up the sentences with seizing assets would be a better plan and over-croud the jails, take away luxaries etc.
Theoretic or practical? History or projections? In the first half of the twentieth century, the United States banned the manufacture, sale, and consumption of alcohol. Drunken disorder and violence were plagues to the community, causing immorality (in general) and human harm (to be specific). We call the period Prohibition. It was eventually repealed because immorality flourished like never before, and human harm increased, and moved closer to the homes of the innocent people. We see the same result, in the US, at least, in the Drug War. If you look into the heart of the American Drug War, it's really hard to tell why drugs are illegal. • The black market exacerbates disease risk among IV drug users, and the criminalization of drug use makes the confessing of felonies a very distasteful option when it comes to seeking treatment. This has gotten so out of hand that the Republican party threatened Colorado Republicans a few years ago with the withdrawal of party support if they voted to legalize needle exchange. This despite the documented fact that needle exchanges (A) reduce transmission of HIV, Hepatitis, and other diseases, and (B) increase the number of addicts seeking treatment. The Drug War is causing its own problem as far as heroin use is concerned. • The black market brings violence. A local restaurant owner, Punjabi, recently commented to me that where he comes from, they kill marijuana not because it is a health risk or a drug risk or a moral problem but because it is a "weed" that can kill other crops. However, the criminalization of drugs has pushed marijuana to prices that, depending on your locality, compete with gold. (I have, before, paid more for marijuana than I would have for that weight in gold.) Note: the high spot price (New York) for gold given at Kitco is $314.80/oz. Marijuana, at its current street price, is running $320-400/oz. When you stop and consider that, aside from the recreational aspect, marijuana includes markets in fuel, fiber/textile, food, and even medicinal. (If marijuana has no medicinal value (per US Congress), why did Unimed Pharmaceuticals synthesize it as a medicine?) Oh, and, of course, the recreational aspect means that. However, I have only ever met one armed pot dealer in my decade-plus with the drug. On the other hand, Congress passed a sentencing standard for crack cocaine (which is no different from powdered cocaine) which made 5 grams of crack (possession) a federal felony warranting a minimum of five years in prison. With the stakes so high, of course the dealers are armed. The same thing happened with alcohol prohibition. • The black market destabilizes quality. Sounds silly? As a fan of opium resin, I've had occasion to wonder about its rarity. Of course, with drugs being illegal, we see heroin being the more popular opiate to sell. Economically, it's the more efficient method of distributing opium. But with fierce black market competition and no quality controls, a bad situation can arise. People who overdose on cocaine often do so because, after getting shitty, diluted cocaine over and over (and therefore doing a higher volume to achieve their high), someone sells them really clean blow, and so they blow their mind, their heart, whatever (by taking the same amount of more potent stuff). In Portland, Oregon, a couple years ago, the situation almost became epidemic when heroin junkies started turning up dead in greater numbers than expected. All of them were overdosing on really good heroin. Super-clean. Not at all what they were used to seeing on the market. After a short time, the problem went away. What it actually resembles in the drug subculture is some idiot who had no idea what he had. Knowing it was heroin, he just sold it, without cutting it. The junkies were overdosing because the stuff they were getting was so pure it was unheard of on the streets. You just don't get heroin this pure on the streets. • D.A.R.E., a highly-touted anti-drug program for youth, conducted by local police departments in public schools, was eventually shown, in a tracking survey, to be associated with increasing drug use among teenagers. That is, D.A.R.E. "graduates" were more likely to do drugs than their dareless counterparts. Now, set these aside for a moment. I'll be right back to them. I am puzzled; see, that's what they said in this country, and that's not how it went. Which is a danger of asset forfeiture. Does anyone remember the Monkey Business? I mentioned it earlier. That yacht would eventually be seized under asset forfeiture laws that were aimed at dealers. Less than a gram of marijuana was found in a waste tank. (The only reason the name of the yacht is even notable is that it played a vital role in one of our presidential elections.) So, given that the American Drug War increased violence, made the drugs themselves more dangerous, and pretty much invented every problem the Drug Warriors complain about today, I would say that my problem is going after the dealers in the first place. Now, I'm not going to pretend that all dealers are nice. I've either been very lucky or have very good taste in dealers. But if you've never heard our "Prison Culture" or "Prison Industry" barbs in the US, it's because human detention is currently a growth-centered industry. Prosecuting a drug war runs the risk of jailing a whole lot of people. We have a huge prison population, disproportionate compared to the rest of the world. Most of those prisoners are drug users. The dealers are harder to shut down. But then again, they only need to be if a country chooses to fight a drug war. Any government can make a lot more money off of drug dealers by taxing them instead of stealing their stuff. Remember, in most countries where marijuana is illegal, alcohol is legal. In most countries where marijuana is illegal, cigarettes are legal. So, why is it that the dealers need to be stopped like this? I mean, aside from the fact that there seems to be a better way to do it? Harm reduction causes better "cure" rates than drug wars. Harm reduction causes better health conditions than drug wars. Decriminalization or legalization both cause less violence than a drug war. Legalization makes money, drug wars waste money. Since I don't recall the actual last census numbers, I'll leave it at a more general number. Approximately 1% of the US population is in federal prison. 75% of these prisoners are in for drugs. Somewhere near 80% of those are for nonviolent possession and delivery crimes. In the meantime, the US is building prisons at an unprecedented pace, while at the same time, bedspace numbers show a decreasing proportion of violent criminals as we fill the beds with drug users. I'm not going to tell the Australians to not pursue a drug war or not to engage in asset forfeiture. I truly have no reason to believe that Australians will botch it as badly as Americans. So judgmental. Some of the nicest and most trustworthy people I've known have sold me drugs. And actually, the relevance is quite simple. • Australia is engaging in asset forfeiture. • The United States has used this policy • In the United States, the policy failed, badly • I happened to mention this, and the reasons why • As you can see, the response I received speaks of what the program is supposed to do • This is part of the issue • We know what Asset Forfeiture is supposed to do, but I've pointed out what it actually does • The response, if they've been stripped of their assets that means they've been caught is the relevance • Theoretically, that is correct • Historically, that statement has no merit • The statement can come true, but that is if the politicians are honest and the system is not abused as it traditionally has; you'd be hard-pressed to show me a nation that has ever kept its asset forfeiture to its expressed reasons, except of course for tyrannies where they're just going to take everything anyway. I can presume the Australian politicians to be dishonest simply because they're politicians, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are dishonest. But if the response to the practical problems demonstrated in history is the potential of the theory, then sure. But the only way that potential comes true is if the policy is executed without corruption. A general thought to consider: What is the legal age to consume alcohol in Australia? Did anyone ever drink underage? Who got you the booze? Did you give that person any money? That person is a drug dealer. The only reason that person would not be included in civil asset forfeiture is a matter of semantics. The fact remains that the person would have delivered a controlled substance in exchange for money. Don't know how many legalization opportunities come up in Australia. But when anyone in the US tries to loosen marijuana laws especially, and drug laws in general, one of the biggest contributors to the campaign against is the alcohol lobby. Strange, that: will the boozers be included in Australia's asset-forfeiture law? They're not on our side of the ocean. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
