With gay marriage decided, what will be the next big left-led social change?

#wrongsideofhistory

 

It was shut down because confiscation laws were being abused. Too many reports of police pulling over people, finding cash on them, arresting them on suspicion of drugs, dropping the charges, and the cash conveniently goes missing.

 

Why not just reform the program?

And, asset/civil forfeiture still exists. The Feds recently curbed how locals could use/benefit from it, but it's still widely available to the Feds.

But, the particular program began in the 80's by Guiliani, Koch, and Ward is now mostly over:

Krimstock hearing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

But, there are still certain activities that will get your car confiscated:

Facing increasing pressure from the taxi industry, authorities in New York have begun to crack down on Uber — issuing tickets and seizing cars of Uber drivers who participate in illegal pickups in the city.

Between April 29 and June 15, the New York Post reports that NYC authorities seized 496 cars from Uber drivers taking illegal street hails, mostly at the three airports in the region.
496 Uber cars seized by New York City authorities - Business Insider

 

How is the site loving Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchent teaming up to debate (er, insult) Karl Pilkington. Have not seen that before. Must make both of them feel like big, strong men.

Unfortunately for long-time readers, Gervais and Merchent have not come up with original material in several years.

 

Because it's assuming guilt before trial.

Now, if they made the law where, upon conviction, the accused forfeits their car, that'd be a different story. The problem, as the link you posted, was that people were accused of crimes, had their cars confiscated, and were waiting years for their hearing to try to get their cars back.

 

Bill, making it easier for Grandma to run against his policies, disavows his 1994 crime bill:

Former President Bill Clinton on Wednesday disavowed part of the anti-crime legislation that he long considered one of his top accomplishments, concluding that it went too far in sending even minor criminals to prison “for way too long.”

Addressing a convention of the N.A.A.C.P. a day after President Obama called for a wholesale overhaul of the criminal justice system, Mr. Clinton embraced the idea. He agreed that the law he enacted in 1994 played a significant part in warping sentencing standards and leading to an era of mass incarceration.

“I signed a bill that made the problem worse,” Mr. Clinton said. “And I want to admit it.”

The expression of regret was the latest effort by Mr. Clinton to reframe his record nearly 15 years after he left office and clear the way for his wife’s own campaign for the White House. Mr. Clinton has previously renounced the Defense of Marriage Act that he signed, defining marriage as the union of a man and woman, and the don’t-ask, don’t-tell policy that barred gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/16/u...ny-for-too-long.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

 

Why should they have to be permanently punished by not being able to vote when they've already paid their debt to society?

 

Because the use of the car is the illegal activity, which is the street hails.

For drugs possessors using the car isn't an illegal activity. Having the drugs is the illegal activity.

 

Because losing the right to vote is also part of the punishment and of paying their debt to society.
That said, I'd be OK with them being able to regain the right to vote if they keep their nose clean for a certain amount of time.

 

And by all means more Zimmermans.

 

On the news this morning, NPR quoted an export on prison reform/crime and punishment who said that when penalties first got tougher crime dropped. But then when even tougher sentences were piled on that and more people were incarcerated, it didn't affect crime rates.

His conclusion is that it might really help to put the first million hard-core criminals away and keep them off the streets but when you add non-violent offenders and throw them in for long stretches it doesn't affect crime rates.

There are always going to be people who aren't "hardened" criminals doing drugs, driving drunk, urinating on sidewalks, etc.