Thank you, Arney! That's exactly what it was!

"Forfeiture laws have become increasingly popular with state and federal law enforcement officials during the last 10 years.... forfeiture has quickly become the darling of law enforcement. Since 1985, for example, the total value of federal asset seizures has increased over 1,500 percent--to over $2.4 billion,(1) including over $643 million for the Department of Justice in FY 1991 alone.(2) This bonanza for law enforcement officials, however, has become a Kafkaesque nightmare for some property owners, who have found themselves caught up in a world of bizarre legal doctrine, sometimes without the assets even to defend themselves."

My point is that IF these cases went to court, jury nullification would be the perfect way to eliminate it. And that's probably WHY these cases don't go to court. But since they don't, the government continues to do it.

Quote:
Careful, jury nullification cuts both ways.


Of course! So name something that doesn't!

Quote:
there are minority jurors who refuse to convict minority plaintiffs accused of certain crimes like drug possesion as a protest against laws which they feel unduly penalize minorities and minority communities.


Do you think it would be better or worse if you left race out of it? There are WHITE jurors who refuse to convict MINORITIES for drug possession, because they think it is a stupid law. How do you feel about that?

Many people think that the current drug laws mimic the previous Prohibition Law, and they don't (another fallacy perpetuated by Hollywood). When alcohol was the Dreaded Evil of the day, only the makers and sellers were charged, NOT the drinkers.

How much of your tax money subsidizes this crap?

Sue