|
|
| Ontario Law Would Expand Seizure of Cars |
|
Posted by FoM on July 17, 2001 at 12:02:21 PT By Buck Wargo Source: Los Angeles Times 
Buy drugs or solicit a prostitute and you could lose your car. That is the gist of a proposed law to be debated tonight by the City Council. The proposed ordinance, which would give police the authority to seize cars during prostitution and drug-related arrests, is intended to provide a deterrent to the crimes, said Richard Maxwell, chief deputy district attorney for San Bernardino County. "I certainly think it would help," Maxwell said. "In California your car is your life. When a person loses their car, that is a much more severe penalty than the law provides for it." Snipped Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
| Comment #5 posted by sm247 on July 17, 2001 at 14:16:07 PT |
| Have you ever met a prostitute with a car???lol I never even knew they could actually drive. unlawful search and SIEZURES [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #4 posted by krutch on July 17, 2001 at 13:59:16 PT:
|
| There is a fundamental idea of law that the forfeiture violates: Equal Treatment. Consider three guys busted getting action in San Bernardino County. One drives Bentley, the other drives a Yugo, and the other rides a bicycle. All commit the same crime of soliciting prostitution and get caught. One forfeits a car worth $100,000, the other forfeits a car worth $300, and the other forfeits a bike worth maybe $100. Did the guy in the Bentley commit a crime that was 1000x worse then the guy on the bike. I say No. They commited the same crime. Also, "Proponents of ordinance targeting customers of dealers, prostitutes say threat of losing a vehicle could be a strong deterrent." So what. Wrong handed, unamerican tactics should not be implemented just because they provide a deterrent. Perhaps advocates of this kind of foolishness should move to some third world hell hole where they hack your arm off for stealing, and castrate you for being a John. I am sure this provides a deterrent. This is also interesting: "Evans said legal seizures should reduce prostitution and drug sales as they have in other cities." Have seizures done this in other cities? Things seem about the same as they ever were in my city, and we do seizures. Driving a problem underground is not the same as solving the problem. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #3 posted by E. Johnson on July 17, 2001 at 12:52:17 PT |
| Who said that Soviet Communism was dead? [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #2 posted by aocp on July 17, 2001 at 12:43:23 PT |
| "It is a huge expense for them," Evans said. "How do you explain your car being taken? The effects are pretty drastic." ...and a huge gain for those less, shall we say, [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #1 posted by Jose Melendez on July 17, 2001 at 12:33:50 PT:
|
| "When a person loses their car, that is a much more severe penalty than the law provides for it." " I was tempted to say I could not have said it better. But poor grammar aside, the quote from the chief deputy district attorney speaks volumes. It shows he is aware that they are contemplating actions beyond that permitted by law. In cases such as these, it seems pertinent to point out that cracking down on one red light district has the effect of expanding such activity into other areas. Similarly, pesticides to "eradicate" fire ants has had the unintended ($?) effect of expanding their territory as poison resistant strains breed on, and as anyone who has stepped on a fire ant pile can tell you, they are excellent at reminding you just how powerful they are. I wonder if they even see what they are doing... oh well, as Mr. Lennon said, "...kharma's gonna get you... gonna knock you off your feet..." [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |