Saw this as the headline story in The Seattle Times today (Wednesday)
Son is busted for drugs, but it’s mom and dad who lose the cars
And that held up on appeals? ???
Any wonder when the Regional Drug Task Force gets to keep the money from anything they confiscate. That is what our drug war has become.
I would ask why was he released 3 times in less than 4 months, if he was arrested with so much stuff in the car?
Had he been properly dealt with early on, maybe the parents would still be driving around.
Nao
From a strictly moral and ethical standpoint I would question why he was ever arrested at all. Was someone else placed in danger somehow?
Parents are always blamed/punished for their children’s behaviour. There’s not much else that courts can do to punish children except to fine the parents (well, fine the child but funnily enough they’re not earning, so guess who pays).
However, I thought by the age of 24 a person would be considered a person and not a child. Looks like we’re really extending adolescence these days.
If he was under the influence of some drug while driving the car, then others would be in danger.
But if it’s solely for possession, then I agree with you.
Unfortunately our government does not operate on a basis of morality.
I think the issue is not so much that he was their son, but just that they were lending a car to a guy so he could sell drugs, and they were aware of this. The fact that he was their son is by-the-by. If i knowingly let a guy sell drugs from my flat i deserve to be done for it, and i see this case as basically the same situation.
I pretty much agree with this…it’s just that the cops had to confiscate the car because the car was constantly being used for drug dealing. The parents, by letting this man use their car, were somewhat “involved” in this “crime.”
This case stretches the bounds of logic in the same way that the application of zero tolerance rules at schools end up stretching the bounds of logic. But rules are rules.
A system where the city/county and the police force financially rely on the takings of property is open to abuse. The police will end up wanting to confiscate as much as possible. Take away the financial incentive and I doubt that the police would have ended up confiscating the cars in this case.
Confiscating cars just because they happened to be used by a drug dealer even if the drug dealer didn’t own the car does not make sense. Any confiscation should be limited to property directly purchased by the drug dealer with drug money. Spreading that out to include any property that the drug dealer has used makes the punishment unequal and affects people who are not benefiting from any of the drug money. Morally it is wrong.
If I owned a 1970 Chevelle… and someone tried to confiscate it from me, you better believe someones going to die before they take it.
On the one hand I agree with JC. The guy didn’t own the cars he was using, therefore they should not be confiscated. This assumes there is no proof that the parents knew what he was up to with their cars. If it can be proved that they were aware of this, Which I get the feeling they did, consider the cars being confiscated from the parents.
Why do we have so much crime in this country? I think part of the reason is too many people seem to find it acceptable. If you know your cousin is a thief and yet you say and do nothing, you’re part of the problem. If you really think your cousin shouldn’t be a thief, if you really care about your cousin, you’ll say or do something to discourage his activities. Like helping him get arrested so he can consider changing his ways.
On the other hand I very much agree with JC that the incentive of confiscating “stuff” that a department gets to keep changes the motivation to something other than just enforcing the law. I wonder who’s driving that Chevelle now, and if they are involved in law enforcement?
Thats exactly what I was thinking.
They just wanted money I guess.
Because the wrong stuff is illegal. If the government suddenly outlawed cigarette smoking, crime would shoot way up.
Lead by example, I guess. When the government commits mass crime, what do you expect the civilians to learn from that?
The drug war lost a battle today. Prosecutors and the parole board in shock as governor grants a full pardon to a convicted druggie. I’m sure this is only a temporary setback for the drug war. It must remain resolute and strong.
How did it come to that?
They’re abusing the law. It was intended to take away the profit motive from drug dealing, but those cars where not bought with drug money.
If the police thinks they where accessories to a crime they should be tried for that.
The other scary aspect of the original case (for me) is the fact that the judges were just about using the law to make comment on the parents’ parenting ability.
Yeah, a 24 year old drug-dealing laze-about makes for a good case supporting their position, I just don’t feel that it’s their place to make such comment.
The other scary aspect of the original case (for me) is the fact that the judges were just about using the law to make comment on the parents’ parenting ability.
Yeah, a 24 year old drug-dealing laze-about makes for a good case supporting their position, I just don’t feel that it’s their place to make such comment.
Nanny state. And to think that the drug war is generally a conservative position supported by those who don’t like the nanny state. Course the liberal side also supports the drug war and hasn’t bothered to act to reduce its impact and abuses.
I fondly recall a piece by Bill Hicks about a goverment official remarking that they were losing the War on Drugs.
He took great joy out of pointing out that the goverment were at war with people on drugs and the people on drugs were winning.
Legalise it and tax it.
We can’t get rid of drugs in prison, where any warden can search anyone, anywhere, anytime, no warrant, no nothing required.
If we want to live in a drug-free world, do you have any idea what a draconian place that would have to be?
A lot of ‘drug deaths’ stem from turf wars between dealing gangs and users overdosing because of inconsistently cut drugs available on the street.
Legalise it, and both these problems dissappear.
Tax it, and you can lower personal income tax rather substantially.
This position makes so much sense, in so many ways, there has to be a dark agenda behind keeping it illegal.
Can you think of a black market economy that is so wealthy that it can fund an agenda to keep it illegal? Hmmmm…