Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 dogma wrote:


Sure, if you assume that schools are only in the business of academic education.

Assuming they're in the business of academic education at all.

 dogma wrote:
Sure, if you assume that schools are only in the business of academic education.

Yeah, shockingly I do assume that schools are there for academic purposes, not to run minor league football teams.

But please, feel free to tell me what school function would be harmed so badly by shutting down the football team that we have to be careful how we punish the football team for letting an "important" coach rape children.

 sebster wrote:
And now consider the Catholic Church, where there isn't even a fixed membership fee, but gives people the freedom to pay as much or as little as they please. Whether they spend that money on good works, or impressive cathedrals and paintings doesn't matter. What matters is that it's an organisation driven by member donations, spending that money per the group's overall objective. Taxing the church's takings would not make sense.

But that's only looking at income taxes. Churches are also exempt from other taxes. For example, churches don't pay property taxes on their buildings, while other property is subject to property taxes whether it's owned by a single person or a group of people formed to purchase that property.

Proceeds from crime, yeah. But St Paul's wasn't built with unpaid child labour...

Fortunately in the US you don't actually need to prove any guilt to seize property. Money does not have the same rights as people do, so when you arrest the money the former owner has the burden of proving that the money was not the result of any criminal activities. For example, if the local police department catches you driving with too much cash they can arrest your money on suspicion of being involved in illegal drug sales and spend it on buying themselves some shiny new guns. I'm simply advocating that we apply the same policy to the Catholic Church.

(No this is not actually a serious proposal, even though the seizure laws really are that horrifyingly wrong.)

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
That is not unique to the United States, especially when it comes to proceeds from crime

Note that this is happening before the owner of the property is convicted of any crime, or even charged. All the police have to do is say that you look "suspicious" and take your money/car/etc. Which is very convenient in this case, we can just declare our suspicion that the church is involved in selling drugs and seize everything they own.

 Peregrine wrote:
But that's only looking at income taxes. Churches are also exempt from other taxes. For example, churches don't pay property taxes on their buildings, while other property is subject to property taxes whether it's owned by a single person or a group of people formed to purchase that property.

And when it comes to land taxes (and favourable income taxes for employees and all the rest) I agree with you. But then I'd extend that same principle to people working at charities and all other kinds of not-for-profits as well.

But then, if we're at the point where I just get to say how the law should work, then I'm getting rid of land taxes entirely, and payroll tax, all transaction taxes, and pretty much everything else, leaving income tax, a single broadbased sales tax, and maybe a handful of excises on particular items with significant externalities.

Fortunately in the US you don't actually need to prove any guilt to seize property. Money does not have the same rights as people do, so when you arrest the money the former owner has the burden of proving that the money was not the result of any criminal activities. For example, if the local police department catches you driving with too much cash they can arrest your money on suspicion of being involved in illegal drug sales and spend it on buying themselves some shiny new guns. I'm simply advocating that we apply the same policy to the Catholic Church.

But you can only sieze assets that it can be reasonably claimed were acquired through those criminal activities. ie you can sieze the porsche of the drug dealer who's legitimate income is a part time McDonald's job, because there's no way his legal income could have paid for that car. But you can't start taking everything a person owns because he committed a crime, and so you can't taking church assets when those assets were acquired through processes that had nothing to do with paedophilia or child labour.

(No this is not actually a serious proposal, even though the seizure laws really are that horrifyingly wrong.)

Yeah, the seizure laws are awful, but their awfulness doesn't really extend in any sensible way to the church.

But you can only sieze assets that it can be reasonably claimed were acquired through those criminal activities. ie you can sieze the porsche of the drug dealer who's legitimate income is a part time McDonald's job, because there's no way his legal income could have paid for that car. But you can't start taking everything a person owns because he committed a crime, and so you can't taking church assets when those assets were acquired through processes that had nothing to do with paedophilia or child labour.

See, you're completely missing how it works here. You don't need to prove that someone committed a crime to seize their assets, as long as they're non-white and/or too poor to afford a lawyer. Nor do you need to prove that the assets were paid for through criminal activities. For example, if the police arrest your adult son (who happens to be living with you) for smoking pot they can also arrest and seize your house, even though it was purchased legitimately before that son was even born.

 Peregrine wrote:

Yeah, shockingly I do assume that schools are there for academic purposes, not to run minor league football teams.

If someone prefaces the word "education" with the word "academic" they probably aren't using them in the synonymous sense. Rather, they are probably using the word "academic" in the sense of "impractical". The point being that schools concern themselves with education that extends beyond the impractical.

 Peregrine wrote:

But please, feel free to tell me what school function would be harmed so badly by shutting down the football team that we have to be careful how we punish the football team for letting an "important" coach rape children.

Aside from the support of a football team? Not many.

Also, why, aside from the Penn State matter, are you focusing on American football? There are plenty of cases in which collegiate athletic departments have covered up sexual abuse by coaches and other employees.

 LordofHats wrote:

Assuming they're in the business of academic education at all.

True enough.

American institutions of higher education are in the business of granting degrees and generating profit for their teachers and faculty.

 dogma wrote:
If someone prefaces the word "education" with the word "academic" they probably aren't using them in the synonymous sense. Rather, they are probably using the word "academic" in the sense of "impractical". The point being that schools concern themselves with education that extends beyond the impractical.

I really have no idea what you're talking about here. What does practical vs. "academic" education have to do with whether or not college football programs contribute anything to their schools?

Aside from the support of a football team? Not many.

Great, so we agree that nothing of any value will be lost if the football team is shut down.

Also, why, aside from the Penn State matter, are you focusing on American football? There are plenty of cases in which collegiate athletic departments have covered up sexual abuse by coaches and other employees.

Because football is the biggest money sport in the US and has the biggest problems with excessive influence, and saying "football" is easier than saying "football or whatever other sport happened to be involved in some other unspecified scandal". Scandals in other sports are just as bad and if the department is covering up similar crimes then those sports should be permanently shut down as well.

 Peregrine wrote:
Great, so we agree that nothing of any value will be lost if the football team is shut down.

I don't agree with that, because I don't buy the argument that zero football money makes it into the rest of the school, but even if that is the case, institutional punishment for individual actions strikes me as a ridiculous concept.

 Peregrine wrote:
You don't need to prove that someone committed a crime to seize their assets, as long as they're non-white and/or too poor to afford a lawyer. Nor do you need to prove that the assets were paid for through criminal activities. For example, if the police arrest your adult son (who happens to be living with you) for smoking pot they can also arrest and seize your house, even though it was purchased legitimately before that son was even born.

They can seize the house, but only if it was used in a manner which renders it pertinent to a criminal investigation.

 Seaward wrote:
I don't agree with that, because I don't buy the argument that zero football money makes it into the rest of the school, but even if that is the case, institutional punishment for individual actions strikes me as a ridiculous concept.

Well, since the real numbers aren't available to anyone outside of the university administrations we'll just have to agree to disagree on the question of whether football is funding the rest of the school or just itself.

As for institutional punishment the problem is that we're talking about more than just an individual here. When the institution itself is involved in covering up a crime there needs to be more than just the removal of the individuals responsible. If nothing else the permanent banning of Penn State's football team would have been great for deterring other schools from even considering the same kind of coverup.

And to clarify I'm talking about the NCAA issuing a permanent ban, not some absurd idea of the government saying "you're not allowed to play football anymore". The NCAA has a policy of punishing the institution for individual offenses, and even imposed an institutional punishment on Penn State. My only disagreement with them is that the punishment should have been much harsher instead of just losing a token bowl game.

 dogma wrote:
They can seize the house, but only if it was used in a manner which renders it pertinent to a criminal investigation.

That might be the case in theory, but in practice the only requirement for seizure seems to be the police wanting the money/property.

 Peregrine wrote:

I really have no idea what you're talking about here. What does practical vs. "academic" education have to do with whether or not college football programs contribute anything to their schools?

If the educational mission of a given school extends beyond the academic, then they clearly must provide programs which educate their students in other ways. Maybe one of those ways is teaching them that people enjoy watching American football, volleyball, basketball, baseball, and the like. Maybe another is that playing sports is fun.

 Peregrine wrote:

Great, so we agree that nothing of any value will be lost if the football team is shut down.

No, that isn't what I said, nor is it what I implied. NCAA football does not benefit a school so much that "we" should be careful how a team is punished in the event that a member of its staff rapes a child. But "we" should recognize that people, other than the guilty, can be harmed in the course of punishing an organization.

 Peregrine wrote:

Because football is the biggest money sport in the US and has the biggest problems with excessive influence, and saying "football" is easier than saying "football or whatever other sport happened to be involved in some other unspecified scandal". Scandals in other sports are just as bad and if the department is covering up similar crimes then those sports should be permanently shut down as well.

You could also just say "collegiate athletics", it's only 9 more letters.

Anyway, this has gone pretty far off-topic. The reason I mentioned college sports at all was to address the claim that I'm unfairly singling out the Catholic Church for criticism and punishment. I think it is safely established now that I'm in favor of harsh punishments for other organizations that commit similar crimes.

 Peregrine wrote:
See, you're completely missing how it works here. You don't need to prove that someone committed a crime to seize their assets, as long as they're non-white and/or too poor to afford a lawyer. Nor do you need to prove that the assets were paid for through criminal activities. For example, if the police arrest your adult son (who happens to be living with you) for smoking pot they can also arrest and seize your house, even though it was purchased legitimately before that son was even born.

I've read a fair few pieces on abuses of those laws in the US (it was a pretty hot topic over here when we brought in our similar laws), but I've never read anything that makes out the situation is as extreme as you claim there. There is most definitely a problem with excessive claims on assets, which are hard to fight because of the terrible burden of proof laws typically in place, but I've never read about straight up grabbing of anything and everything that was near the person when the crime was committed.

 sebster wrote:
I've read a fair few pieces on abuses of those laws in the US (it was a pretty hot topic over here when we brought in our similar laws), but I've never read anything that makes out the situation is as extreme as you claim there. There is most definitely a problem with excessive claims on assets, which are hard to fight because of the terrible burden of proof laws typically in place, but I've never read about straight up grabbing of anything and everything that was near the person when the crime was committed.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_stillman?currentPage=1 should give you some pretty nice examples. It may not be literally "anything and everything" but the only difference between theft and what those police departments are doing is that we pretend that one of them is legal.

And, like the sports thing, I'm done with this tangent. The original comment about "declare it all to be drug money and seize the churches" was just a joke about how awful the seizure laws are here, so it's not really worth debating anymore.

 Peregrine wrote:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_stillman?currentPage=1 should give you some pretty nice examples. It may not be literally "anything and everything" but the only difference between theft and what those police departments are doing is that we pretend that one of them is legal.

Yeah, that fits with my understanding of the law, and is pretty much what I said - disturbingly low burden of proof for seizure, but you can't just go grabbing any assets a person or organisation has after they commit a crime.

And, like the sports thing, I'm done with this tangent. The original comment about "declare it all to be drug money and seize the churches" was just a joke about how awful the seizure laws are here, so it's not really worth debating anymore.

Fair enough, I think we were talking past each other for the most part.

 Peregrine wrote:
Note that this is happening before the owner of the property is convicted of any crime, or even charged. All the police have to do is say that you look "suspicious" and take your money/car/etc. Which is very convenient in this case, we can just declare our suspicion that the church is involved in selling drugs and seize everything they own.

I'm surprised that the ACLU aren't all over this

sebster wrote:Proceeds from crime, yeah. But St Paul's wasn't built with unpaid child labour...

Not sure about the Christopher Wren design, but I'd hazard a guess that the original St Paul's actually was build with unpaid child labour.

Seaward wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Great, so we agree that nothing of any value will be lost if the football team is shut down.

I don't agree with that, because I don't buy the argument that zero football money makes it into the rest of the school, but even if that is the case, institutional punishment for individual actions strikes me as a ridiculous concept.

Twice in one thread we agree on something. That's... definitely unique.

Twice in a single thread?

....whelp, time to go inna woods and wait for the world to end.