Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

Well, here I have listed some facts related to risk of driving. Yet people choose to drive. I wonder if anyone would even think of driving (the response) if they merely thought about severity and likelihood.

All right, I'll be more strictly accurate. When thinking about risk, we (should) take into account only severity and likelihood, and their possible consequences. OK?

[Sushan]

Well, here I have listed some facts related to risk of driving. Yet people choose to drive. I wonder if anyone would even think of driving (the response) if they merely thought about severity and likelihood.

All right, I'll be more strictly accurate. When thinking about risk, we (should) take into account only severity and likelihood, and their possible consequences. OK?

Here is what you said in your previous response, and seemingly the new one does not have the word 'response'. We were talking about responding, not merely risk analysis (Or maybe I was talking about responding while you were talking strictly about risk analysis ).

True; both severity and likelihood are important when deciding how to respond. But as I previously mentioned, these are not the only factors that we consider when responding.

Actually, no. When we focus only on risk analysis, severity and likelihood *are* "the only factors that we consider when responding". As, and if, our focus widens beyond mere risk analysis, many other factors become significant too.

[Pattern-chaser]

Here is what you said in your previous response, and seemingly the new one does not have the word 'response'. We were talking about responding, not merely risk analysis (Or maybe I was talking about responding while you were talking strictly about risk analysis ).

Oh dear.

We encounter a risk.
We analyse the risk using likelihood and severity. Either one, alone, will not deliver a useful answer.*
Then we decide whether we want to take the risk by comparing the now-quantified risk with the benefits of taking it.

That's it.



* —Hence my original comment.

[Sushan]

Here is what you said in your previous response, and seemingly the new one does not have the word 'response'. We were talking about responding, not merely risk analysis (Or maybe I was talking about responding while you were talking strictly about risk analysis ).

Oh dear.

We encounter a risk.
We analyse the risk using likelihood and severity. Either one, alone, will not deliver a useful answer.*
Then we decide whether we want to take the risk by comparing the now-quantified risk with the benefits of taking it.

That's it.



* —Hence my original comment.

I see and I agree, and seemingly we have been on the same page and I haven't understood you. Thank you for the clarification and sorry for my naivety.

[Upeksha]

It’s shocking to see how easily innocent individuals can lose their property without due process. People place their trust in the laws and systems which meant to protect them, but when these systems exploit and harm instead, where can they turn?

It’s commendable that this article sheds light on such an alarming issue, and there’s no doubt that this unjust practice must be stopped to restore fairness and protect individual rights

[Sushan]

It’s shocking to see how easily innocent individuals can lose their property without due process. People place their trust in the laws and systems which meant to protect them, but when these systems exploit and harm instead, where can they turn?

It’s commendable that this article sheds light on such an alarming issue, and there’s no doubt that this unjust practice must be stopped to restore fairness and protect individual rights

Quite true. We can defend ourselves when we know the thief. But how can anyone protect themselves when the thief has disguised as the police? That is the danger as well as the ugliness of legalised theft, a.k.a. Civil Forfeiture.

[Philreen]

Civil forfeiture is a legal mechanism that allows authorities to seize property suspected of being connected to illegal activities without requiring a criminal conviction. This practice flips the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" on its head, as the property itself is treated as the accused. Critics argue that civil forfeiture creates significant problems, including placing the burden of proof on innocent individuals who must navigate complex legal battles to reclaim their assets. Furthermore, law enforcement agencies often retain the proceeds from these seizures, leading to a profit-driven approach known as "policing for profit."

Real-life cases illustrate the potential abuses of civil forfeiture, such as a grandmother nearly losing her home due to her son's minor drug offense and a small business owner having a significant amount of money seized based on suspicious deposit patterns without any criminal charges. The issue is not confined to the United States; similar practices exist in Canada and Europe, often lacking adequate safeguards.

Despite the challenges, reform efforts are underway, with organizations advocating for legislative changes to protect individual rights and ensure due process. Some states have begun requiring a criminal conviction before forfeiture can occur. The urgency of addressing civil forfeiture lies in its threat to personal liberty and trust in the justice system, making it essential for advocates of property rights to push for meaningful reforms.

[Sushan]

Civil forfeiture is a legal mechanism that allows authorities to seize property suspected of being connected to illegal activities without requiring a criminal conviction. This practice flips the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" on its head, as the property itself is treated as the accused. Critics argue that civil forfeiture creates significant problems, including placing the burden of proof on innocent individuals who must navigate complex legal battles to reclaim their assets. Furthermore, law enforcement agencies often retain the proceeds from these seizures, leading to a profit-driven approach known as "policing for profit."

Real-life cases illustrate the potential abuses of civil forfeiture, such as a grandmother nearly losing her home due to her son's minor drug offense and a small business owner having a significant amount of money seized based on suspicious deposit patterns without any criminal charges. The issue is not confined to the United States; similar practices exist in Canada and Europe, often lacking adequate safeguards.

Despite the challenges, reform efforts are underway, with organizations advocating for legislative changes to protect individual rights and ensure due process. Some states have begun requiring a criminal conviction before forfeiture can occur. The urgency of addressing civil forfeiture lies in its threat to personal liberty and trust in the justice system, making it essential for advocates of property rights to push for meaningful reforms.

Thank you for the nice summarization of the discussion topic. I would like to know your thoughts about this law. Is it okay to have such a law, or is it necessary to be reformed?