Car Seizure Law Angers Hispanics

Chicago Tribune | January 16, 2004 | Daniel Gibbard, Ginny Skweres

[Protagoras]

For driving-related crimes such as DWI, seizure should be part of the punishment when convicted.

That's one opinion. Why not take your house? Your TV?

There are already penalties.

[B4Ranch]

The cop determines if the person has the ability to pay, I guess. You'd have to ask a watch commander for details.

[Stu Cohen]

So, you agree that we should require liscensing of all guns? Even the blackpowder guns that have been handed down from ancestors?

No, but if it is against the current law to do so, illegal aliens carrying blackpowder guns should have them taken away.

Automobiles are a dicey area. Just as you probably would likely not advocate a pilot be able to fly without a license, it is somewhat specious to advocate that people be allowed to pilot a 4,000lb vehicle down a street filled with people without a license. Sometimes, under certain circumstances, it just makes sense to be required to pass competency tests before being allowed to use specific pieces of private property. I think far too many people are behind the wheel of a vehichle without posessing basic competency skills. This is why I think it is somewhat diffent than a purely "private property" issue, and cross somethat into a "public safety" issue.

If I pretended to be a pilot, and hopped in the cockpit of your American Airlines flight, and took you from NY to LA ... you'd probably pretty mad. You probably wouldn't care if I was actually capable of flying or not, you'd want to see that I passed some kind of test. Same with practicing medicine without a license. You'd probably be kinda upset if I gave you a prostate exam without a medical license. Or represented you in court without a license to practice law ...

I could go on, but I think you get the point. Driving requires a certain level of competence that I think should be licensed ... and I think that process should be much more difficult that it is now.

I think you should be a legal citizen with license and insurance. If you aren't, do I think it is an abuse to take your vehicle? No, not in this instance. Most instances, yes ...

I don't advocate that we all quit paying insurance, but I do advocate that it should be voluntary. If I can afford to carry the risk, then I should be able to not pay another private company to fund my potential lawsuits. If I am an individual that can afford to put a few million aside, why should I be required to pay AAA a couple of grand a year, when they aren't doing anything different?

I kind of agree with you here. Nobody should be forced to do business with a private company. Problem is, if you've got millions put aside, buying insurance probably isn't a big issue for you anyway. The reality is that it usually is the folks who can't find their accidents that do not have insurance. I agree with you in principal, but the reality is different. Not sure where I should stand here. Tough call.

My official position is that I wouldn't think that liscensing and insurance policies will work the same way in every situation in every location.

Okay, but illegally entering the country, illegally driving without a license, and illegally driving without insurance represent a trifecta of pretty much disregarding the laws of the country. If the confiscate the low-rider and sell it to pay for the food stamps, I am finding it reallllllly hard to say that it's the wrong thing to do.

I'll think on it a bit though. You do have some valid points.

[CSM]

"Okay, but illegally entering the country, illegally driving without a license, and illegally driving without insurance represent a trifecta of pretty much disregarding the laws of the country. If the confiscate the low-rider and sell it to pay for the food stamps, I am finding it reallllllly hard to say that it's the wrong thing to do."

You don't need the trifecta to confiscate the property. The illegal commits a crime when they enter the country illegally. The property they accumulate (car, house, money, etc.) is gained in the commission of a crime. Therefore, just being illegal should warrant the confiscation of property and deportation. The other two are unecessary. If we end up supporting confiscation of vehicles for being uninsured or (not and) unliscensed, then we open up the ability to abuse our own citizenry. I can't support it.

[Stu Cohen]

You don't need the trifecta to confiscate the property. The illegal commits a crime when they enter the country illegally. The property they accumulate (car, house, money, etc.) is gained in the commission of a crime. Therefore, just being illegal should warrant the confiscation of property and deportation. The other two are unecessary. If we end up supporting confiscation of vehicles for being uninsured or (not and) unliscensed, then we open up the ability to abuse our own citizenry. I can't support it.

I get your drift, and again, I SORTA agree.

But what do you do to the doctor who is practicing medicine with a revoked license? Is it wrong to take away his instruments of practice? Do you just fine him? Should people driving without a license simply be locked up, but be allowed to maintain possession of the car?

You pretty much know whether you have a license or not. I do not have a pilot's license, therefore, I will not go buy a plane and fly it.

I doubt anyone would sympathize with me if I did so, and the FAA took the plane away.

If they took your house, or your garden hose because you drove without a licesne, that's a different matter. But it seems they are taking away the instrument of illegal behavior itself.

There are a few shades of gray here.

[Protagoras]

Licensing of people for various occupations should be voluntary.

[Protagoras]

But what do you do to the doctor who is practicing medicine with a revoked license?

There are already criminal penalties for fraud.

[CSM]

"But what do you do to the doctor who is practicing medicine with a revoked license? Is it wrong to take away his instruments of practice? Do you just fine him? Should people driving without a license simply be locked up, but be allowed to maintain possession of the car?"

The doctor should be heavily fined and possibly spend some time behind bars. That determination would be based on the level of harm brought upon his "patients". As far as unliscensed drivers, we already have the ability to confiscate the registration of such vehicles. You could mandate that he could not register a vehicle for the same amount of time that they are not eligible for a liscense. Most likely they would voluntarily sell their car, rather than not be able to register it. I know some of these people would continue the crime spree by stealing a plate or sticker and then drive. Well, they are committing several crimes and they should be jailed accordingly.

The same registration system exists for planes, so I would take the same actions.

---

"If they took your house, or your garden hose because you drove without a licesne, that's a different matter. But it seems they are taking away the instrument of illegal behavior itself."

What if the unliscensed doctor was practicing out of his home? What if you could link the failure to purchase insurance to the house costing to much and the driver couldn't afford the insurance for the car? Wouldn't the government make these types of stretches to gain more power and gain higher revenues?

[Stu Cohen]

Licensing of people for various occupations should be voluntary.

Even for police officers, doctors, pilots, bus drivers, hazmat workers, nuclear technicians ... it should all be voluntary?

Not sure I agree with you there, but I guess it's one to think on.

[Stu Cohen]

What if the unliscensed doctor was practicing out of his home? What if you could link the failure to purchase insurance to the house costing to much and the driver couldn't afford the insurance for the car? Wouldn't the government make these types of stretches to gain more power and gain higher revenues?

Well, ft not, isn't that just more redistribution of wealth?

I have to buy increasing "unlicensed" driver insurance because nobody else is forced to cover their costs. My costs keep going up until maybe I can't afford it either. If you can't afford insurance for the car (or can't post an unlicenced bond), aren't you shifting the risk and costs of your behavior to everyone else?

I mean, someone's gotta pay for it. Besides the taxpayer.

I never really understood homeowner insurance, since the only person likely to be hurt is the homeowner. Few people drive their houses down the street drunk. I guess that banks want to cover their investments, but it seems they should be the insurance in that case until they no longer own the house. Or make it voluntary to the homebuyer.

And does anyone really "own" a home. After you are done with the bank you still pay rent to the state. I think it's called "personal property" tax, or some other word for "rent".

[Stu Cohen]

Sorry, I am making too many typos today. I gotta take a break. If you could read my previous post, kudos.

[Protagoras]

Even for police officers,

I don't think police are licensed, in some cases certified as having completed training, but not always.

doctors,

I wouldn't go to a doctor who wasn't, but I wouldn't force others to abstain. It could be done without government force IMO.

pilots,

Ditto.

bus drivers,

Competency to drive in the company of others is desirable, but so far unenforceable. Government does a very poor job of determining it. A license is permission, not proof of competency. Nor should a group of politicians be in charge of determining competency IMO. They are generally unqualified to make such determinations.

hazmat workers,

The person who hires them should be careful they are qualified.

nuclear technicians ...

Same thing.

it should all be voluntary?

These are hard cases you cited, fair enough, but then I would make the case against all the rest.

Tavern owners?, Barbers? Cabbies who have a drivers license? The list is endless.

[CSM]

Wow, that post jumped around quite a bit. So, here goes:

"Well, ft not, isn't that just more redistribution of wealth?"

Yes, the government will do anything to redistribute wealth, or in other words to buy votes. That is the main reason I don't like confiscation of property. It is to arbitrary and can be taken to far to quick.

"I have to buy increasing "unlicensed" driver insurance because nobody else is forced to cover their costs. My costs keep going up until maybe I can't afford it either. If you can't afford insurance for the car (or can't post an unlicenced bond), aren't you shifting the risk and costs of your behavior to everyone else?"

The essence of any insurance program is socialism. Since the government forces you into the programs, they force you to pay for other people's behavior. My solution would be to force people to pay for any damage they cause to your property. If someone crashes into you and totals your car, then you will not pay any of the costs, they should be liable for 100% of the costs. If this were the case, your costs could be minimized as a reward for not costing the insurance company very much. It would also force people to be a lot more careful.

"I never really understood homeowner insurance, since the only person likely to be hurt is the homeowner. Few people drive their houses down the street drunk. I guess that banks want to cover their investments, but it seems they should be the insurance in that case until they no longer own the house. Or make it voluntary to the homebuyer."

True, it should be voluntary. If I can afford to set aside a comfortable amount of money to cover potential loss, then I should be able to do it. Once again, forced into business with a private company.

"And does anyone really "own" a home. After you are done with the bank you still pay rent to the state. I think it's called "personal property" tax, or some other word for "rent"."

Yep, that is why no one even has the slightest understanding of private property any more. Eminent domain has led to even more problems, but it all started with the rent.

[hopespringseternal]

That's one opinion. Why not take your house? Your TV?

For, say a thief, an appropriate punishment may to take everything he owns, sell it and give it to his victims. That is hypothetical, since the government will keep it all anyway.

Seizing the vehicle of a convicted drunk driver is a very appropriate punishment. It strikes at the very offense committed.

Notice that this is only for convicted offenders. This is not what is being done now.

[CSM]

"Seizing the vehicle of a convicted drunk driver is a very appropriate punishment. It strikes at the very offense committed."

So you could potentially punish one person convicted to a $60,000 fine by seizing his Jaguar and fine another person $1,000 for seizing his beater. Now imagine both had a .08 BAC. Do you put a cap on the value of the property you are siezing? What response do you give the class warfare folks who will say that the system favors the rich because it doesn't take their cars (valued over the cap).

Why not just reject the registration of any vehicle by the convicted? Why not pass a law that you are not allowed to posess unregistered vehicles?

[hopespringseternal]

Good points.

You have to remember though, that Sam Walton drove a beater. While you may not have any drunk illegals driving Ferraris, you do have very wealthy people driving beaters.

If you throw the penalty out there, the drunk gets to choose the level of pain based on the car he chooses to drive drunk.

It is best just to throw the drunk driver in jail. But we are fast approaching the time when the only crimes that are punished are those profitable to the governing entity doing the prosecution.

[johnb838]

And a scam you can thank America's Mayor Rudy Giuliani for. I for the life of me can't understand how RICO passes constitutional muster. I guess it's that the 4th protects against unreasonable search and seizure, bur reasonable seizure is just dandy.

[CSM]

"You have to remember though, that Sam Walton drove a beater. While you may not have any drunk illegals driving Ferraris, you do have very wealthy people driving beaters."

That is true. I wouldn't begrudge anyone their choice to drive a beater.

"If you throw the penalty out there, the drunk gets to choose the level of pain based on the car he chooses to drive drunk."

Who is really being punished? That would depend on who actually own's the vehicle. How many people own their vehicle outright?

I think we should set up a fine or jail situation. You can pay or sit.......Do you think we should allow for confiscation of vehicles for other offenses? Such as those in the article. Should we expand those offenses to speeding or illegally parking?

I just can't see accepting the arbitrary situation and potential government abuse that this will eventually lead to.

[freedumb2003]

And does anyone really "own" a home. After you are done with the bank you still pay rent to the state. I think it's called "personal property" tax, or some other word for "rent".

Same is true for beer (except the tax part).

[Protagoras]

Seizing the vehicle of a convicted drunk driver is a very appropriate punishment. It strikes at the very offense committed.

What about rental cars? Better yet, why not punish the offender?

For, say a thief, an appropriate punishment may to take everything he owns, sell it and give it to his victims.

Steal a bagel, lose everything? Better write your representive if you want the draconian laws you desire.

Sounds to me like your problem is with the current punishment under the law. It's a different question.