Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Civil Forfeiture is the Lamest thing ever

MrMonroeMrMonroe Registered User regular
edited June 2008 in Debate and/or Discourse
So a family member of mine is suspected of a crime (I'm not going to say exactly what). The FBI showed up at his doorstep a while back with the Sheriffs and they told him he was under investigation. Without being charged with anything, they charged his stuff with the crime of being suspected to have something to do with a crime, and proceeded to haul off perhaps $75k worth of computer equipment (including monitors), his cameras (professional photographer), his iPod, his entire CD collection, and all his photo albums, including pictures of family as well as records of his work (weddings, sports events, etc.). They seized similar assets belonging to other family members who happen to live with him.

Basically, in order to circumvent that irksome constitutional right to be secure in life liberty and property until convicted of a crime, the police arrest your stuff, charge it with a crime, then hold it indefinitely without ever bringing prosecution to bear on it. (like a computer could be guilty of a crime in the first place) The burden of proof that the stuff was not used in a crime is on the suspect, and in order to even begin proceedings to recover it, one must post a bail bond of 10% of the value of the property seized within 30 days of the seizure. The seized property usually goes up to the feds, who auction it and then return a portion of the money to whatever local agency stole the goods in the first place.

Federal Bureau of Taking All Your Shit indeed.

MrMonroe on
«1345

Posts

  • dgs095dgs095 Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I'm Canadian and not up to date on US law, but I recall being kinda sickened at hearing how easily "special measures" were put in place in the US allowing the government to basically do all the stuff they used to need a warrant for without a warrant....
    You let the government take away your rights out of fear of terrorists.
    I've traveled in the USA and for the most part Canadians and Americans aren't nearly as different as everyone likes to think.

    I think we are all good people, I know Canadians happily living the US, and I know Americans who live here in Canada and are also quite happy.

    Is not the goal of terrorists to make you afraid? Giving in to that fear was basically letting them win....

    Yes, some security measures can be taken, yes worldwide crackdowns on terrorist groups make a difference..

    but there were a ton of knee jerk reactions and "safety measures" and heck, I'd even slate the war in Iraq as a knee jerk reaction, these knee jerk reactions don't provide actual safety.

    The world saw through the veil, to the core of "were scared and angry so were gonna do what we want!" and the rest of the world isn't impressed. It's time to take a step back. Elect Obama, get rid of stupid laws and special powers which provide little in the way of safety and protection and take away your rights. Pull out of Iraq, get national health coverage, and fix your economic problems before you pull the rest of the world into a recession.


    Also: how the hell can inanimate objects be guilty of a crime? How do you even go about proving your equipment is innocent? What kinda crime do they accuse your equipment of? illegal file hosting? And data is not stored on 99% of that equipment....its on hard drives...confiscating screens is just ignorant.

    Edit: OK I see how taking money criminals made from committing crimes makes sense, but shouldn't the burden of proof rest on the prosecution to prove that the money used to buy the equipment in question or the equipment in question came from criminal acts or criminals who have been convicted?

  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2008
    They don't actually charge your equipment with a crime - that's an exaggeration to make a point here I think.

  • ubernekouberneko Registered User
    edited June 2008
    Am I allowed to post this link? It has to do with the subject.

    http://www.fear.org/
    Incredible as it sounds, civil asset forfeiture laws allow the government to seize property without charging anyone with a crime. Until FEAR achieved the nation's first major federal forfeiture law reform at the turn of the millenium, the government was allowed to keep whatever property it seized without ever having to prove a case. Seized property was presumed guilty and could be forfeited based upon mere hearsay—even a tip supplied by an informant who stood to gain up to 25% of the forfeited assets. Owners were forced into the untenable situation of trying to prove a negative—that something never happened, even though no proof of any illegal act had been offered at trial.
    Innocent owners who are never charged with a crime still must prove their innocence in complex proceedings, where many cases are lost before even coming to trial. Most forfeiture cases are never contested, in part because contesting the proceedings can cost more than the value of what's been confiscated. "The average vehicle siezed is worth about $4,000," states FEAR president Brenda Grantland, Esq. "To defend a case, especially when you're out of state, they've pretty much made it cost prohibitive." Under civil asset forfeiture laws, the simple possessoin of cash, with no drugs or other contraband, can be considered evidence of criminal activity.

    Crazy stuff, but hopefully something will done to stop it. I had never heard of this before and it was good to see some info about it.

  • SeptusSeptus Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Did the FBI have a warrant, MrMonroe?

    rodq.jpg
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Step 1: Stop voting for fucking Republicans and DINOs like Lieberman and Feinstein (What is it about Jewish Senators that makes them suck, but strangely doesn't afflict their colleagues in the House?)

  • EriosErios Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    jeepguy wrote: »
    Step 1: Stop voting for fucking Republicans and DINOs like Lieberman and Feinstein (What is it about Jewish Senators that makes them suck, but strangely doesn't afflict their colleagues in the House?)

    Not that I don't agree, but Democrats can do the same thing, since they(we) are often morally obligated to do acts "in defense of the people."

    EDIT: I was never even aware of this power on the part of law enforcement. After reading up on it, I must say I am somewhat appalled.

    Steam: erios23, Live: Coconut Flavor, Origin: erios2386.
  • Shazkar ShadowstormShazkar Shadowstorm Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Wait, they just had a show about this on NPR on my car ride home
    This isn't a coincidence is it?
    Regardless, check out NPR's site, I think it was during All Thing Considered

    EDIT: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91555835 here is the program, have a look or a listen

    | Steam & XBL: Shazkar | 3DS: 3110-5421-3843 | SS Wishlists |
  • Shazkar ShadowstormShazkar Shadowstorm Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Cauld wrote: »
    I'm listening to a story about this on NPR right now <img class=" title=":lol:" class="bbcode_smiley" />
    Ah, missed this. Well, I posted the link for the story just above if anyone wants to listen or read.

    | Steam & XBL: Shazkar | 3DS: 3110-5421-3843 | SS Wishlists |
  • TaramoorTaramoor Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Wait, they just had a show about this on NPR on my car ride home
    This isn't a coincidence is it?
    Regardless, check out NPR's site, I think it was during All Thing Considered

    EDIT: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91555835 here is the program, have a look or a listen

    From the article:
    Richard Weber, chief of the asset forfeiture section of the Justice Department, was asked if he found these cases troubling. They're insignificant, he said, compared with the thousands of traffic stops where major drug money couriers are busted.

    "What's troubling to you?" Weber asks. "That a drug trafficker who's bringing money from the U.S. to Mexico, who's carrying hundreds of thousands of millions of dollars in cash in their pickup truck, who just sold dope and crack and cocaine to children in your playgrounds, and his money is being taken away? That troubles you?"

    Wow, that's some refined rhetoric right there.

    Why didn't he just say "Why are you against this? You a terrorist?"

  • deadonthestreetdeadonthestreet Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Medopine wrote: »
    They don't actually charge your equipment with a crime - that's an exaggeration to make a point here I think.
    No, they actually file suit against the property. It's pretty fucked up.

  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2008
    Medopine wrote: »
    They don't actually charge your equipment with a crime - that's an exaggeration to make a point here I think.
    No, they actually file suit against the property. It's pretty fucked up.

    Well then. So messed up even a lawyer to be didn't think it would be possible.

  • TL DRTL DR Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    an_alt wrote: »
    I think the idea of civil forfeiture is fine - ie the feds take your drug profits. The problem is the application which in this case is the burden of proof. It would be reasonable after a criminal conviction to allow civil forfeiture using the civil burden of proof.

    The reverse burden without a conviction is simply appalling.

    Taking goods as the spoils of crime is fine, but you (should?) have to prove that they were obtained through or used to commit crime. Guy files a $10,000 tax return and gets busted with a kilo of cocaine on a speed boat? Fine, take the boat and his Ferrari too. Another guy gets busted with a kilo of cocaine, but doesn't show any unusual assets for his reported income? Fuck off, he's likely a mule.

    eokNV.jpg
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    Well, I guess you could charge a purse with being accessory to murder.

    Can your friend call himself the equipment's guardian and bring a habeas corpus suit?

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Was your uncle charged with possessing kiddie porn?

    Dis' wrote: »
    Cancer is when cells stop letting the body mooch off their hard work - clearly a community of like-minded cells should isolate themselves and do the best job each can do, even if the rest of the body collapses!
  • RedThornRedThorn Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Holy cow, the interview with the Chief of the Asset Forfeiture section of the Department of Justice in that NPR show was rage inducing. When asked whether the mentioned cases of people having money taken from them unjustly and it being so expensive that they are inable to challenge it in court were troubling, he answered:
    What's troubling to you? That a drug trafficker who's bringing money from the United States to Mexico, who's carrying hundreds of thousands of millions of dollars in cash in their pickup truck, who just sold dope and crack and cocaine to children in your playgrounds, and his money is being taken away? That troubles you?

    EDIT: Oops I fail at grammar today.

    League of Legends: Drokmir
    Steam: Drokmir
  • MrMonroeMrMonroe Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I assume they did not have a warrant as he is still "under suspicion" and has not been charged with anything. This happened a few months ago so presumably he is not going to be charged. They just charged all of his and his dad's stuff with a crime and walked off with it. (Oh, and got him fired to boot)

    One example of how this can hurt innocents: (and I will link this as soon as I have access to the article again)

    Back in the 90's this guy got caught with some pot and was offered probation if he started working as an informant. They paid him $4 something/hour... and gave him 10% of all the property seized on his info. He fingered a guy he'd never met, saying he sold him weed that he had grown on his farm. The Feds walked in, with warrant, arrested the guy, and then arrested his 60 acre farm. No marijuana was ever found on the farm, nor and other evidence of drug dealing. The guy never got the farm back because he couldn't post the bail. How many farmers you know that can post bail of 10% of their net physical worth with no notice? (plus lawyers' fees)

  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    RedThorn wrote: »
    What's troubling to you? That a drug trafficker who's bringing money from the United States to Mexico, who's carrying hundreds of thousands of millions of dollars in cash in their pickup truck, who just sold dope and crack and cocaine to children in your playgrounds, and his money is being taken away? That troubles you?

    Except, what troubles me is that this law isn't exclusively applied to drug traffickers. What also concerns me is that no one took a second to go "well if he can get that much, he can get more just as easily to post the bond on the items" whereas a normal citizen usually can't.

  • NoelVeigaNoelVeiga Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Glad to be European.

    No, really, anti americanism aside, having put some study into compared constitutional traditions, my opinion is the US needs to rewrite their Constitution ASAP.

    Proud as you guys are of having the oldest democratic system, you seem painfuly unaware that its age also makes it the patchiest, most archaic one in the western world. Sadly, you've sacralized your Constitution, which is now more a religious than a legal document, and you're not even considering a big time revision at this time.

    You should just start on your electoral system and go on from there.

    But yeah, I'm so sorry about the abuse. Your relative being guilty or not is beyond the point, that procedure is bullshit either way. I knew people here in simiar situations. They had their business seized on suspicion of copyright infringement. They won the case and got their stuff back, plus extra money due to the biz being closed over Christmas season. They weren't happy about it, but at least they didn't go broke due to the procedure.

    EDIT: For the record, the investigation to these guys was IMO very reasonable. They owned a video rental shop AND a DVD copy station, both in the same street. They did a good job of making a legal argument and won, but the investigation wasn't uncalled for. They still got decent compensation money.

  • SkutSkutSkutSkut Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    NoelVeiga wrote: »
    Glad to be European.

    No, really, anti americanism aside, having put some study into compared constitutional traditions, my opinion is the US needs to rewrite their Constitution ASAP.

    Proud as you guys are of having the oldest democratic system, you seem painfuly unaware that its age also makes it the patchiest, most archaic one in the western world. Sadly, you've sacralized your Constitution, which is now more a religious than a legal document, and you're not even considering a big time revision at this time.

    You should just start on your electoral system and go on from there.

    But yeah, I'm so sorry about the abuse. Your relative being guilty or not is beyond the point, that procedure is bullshit either way. I knew people here in simiar situations. They had their business seized on suspicion of copyright infringement. They won the case and got their stuff back, plus extra money due to the biz being closed over Christmas season. They weren't happy about it, but at least they didn't go broke due to the procedure.

    That's the problem with the constitution in the first place, it was made to be rewritten.

  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2008
    NoelVeiga wrote: »
    Glad to be European.

    No, really, anti americanism aside, having put some study into compared constitutional traditions, my opinion is the US needs to rewrite their Constitution ASAP.

    Proud as you guys are of having the oldest democratic system, you seem painfuly unaware that its age also makes it the patchiest, most archaic one in the western world. Sadly, you've sacralized your Constitution, which is now more a religious than a legal document, and you're not even considering big time revision at this time.

    You should just start on your electoral system and go on from there.

    But yeah, I'm so sorry about the abuse. Your relative being guilty or not is beyond the point, that procedure is bullshit either way. I new people here in simiar situations. They had their business seized on suspicion of copyright infringement. They won the case and got their stuff back, plus extra money due to the biz being closed over Christmas season. They weren't happy about it, but at least they didn't go broke due to the procedure.

    It's not the Constitution, it's the fucked up interpretation of it. Also if you think "big time revision" is possible at this point, you're living in a dream world. We need a better administration (as the executive branch controls the FBI and all that) and we need courts to step up and uphold what the Constitution really means.

    And I believe Athens was the oldest democratic system :P

  • NoelVeigaNoelVeiga Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Medopine wrote: »
    NoelVeiga wrote: »
    Glad to be European.

    No, really, anti americanism aside, having put some study into compared constitutional traditions, my opinion is the US needs to rewrite their Constitution ASAP.

    Proud as you guys are of having the oldest democratic system, you seem painfuly unaware that its age also makes it the patchiest, most archaic one in the western world. Sadly, you've sacralized your Constitution, which is now more a religious than a legal document, and you're not even considering big time revision at this time.

    You should just start on your electoral system and go on from there.

    But yeah, I'm so sorry about the abuse. Your relative being guilty or not is beyond the point, that procedure is bullshit either way. I new people here in simiar situations. They had their business seized on suspicion of copyright infringement. They won the case and got their stuff back, plus extra money due to the biz being closed over Christmas season. They weren't happy about it, but at least they didn't go broke due to the procedure.

    It's not the Constitution, it's the fucked up interpretation of it. Also if you think "big time revision" is possible at this point, you're living in a dream world. We need a better administration (as the executive branch controls the FBI and all that) and we need courts to step up and uphold what the Constitution really means.

    And I believe Athens was the oldest democratic system :P

    Nope, the US is the oldest democratic system still in place without interruption. Everybody else has had more than one constitution in their democratic histories.

    And yeah, it's the Constitution. Your maximum legal court is chosen for a lifetime position, which is ridiculous on XXI century lifespans, it contains anachronic dispositions recognizing firearms as rights and not banning death penalty (both inherited from colonial origins, both considered barbaric in most modern democracies), you have a non-proportional electoral system, not applying now-standard D'Hont system and producing statistically inaccurate results that deviate from actual public opinions. Your electoral system is also too long and complex and lacks a few basic guarantees. You have criminal laws tha differ in each state which, again, doesn't make sense on modern transporation systems, you have an excessively presidential system that could potentially render the whole system inactive if things get messy...

    It's been patched to be serviceable, but it doesn't hold a candle to a modern Constitution designed to work as a closed system on the basis of nearly 300 years of democratic experience.

    Also for the record, Spain got a new constitution in 78 and it's been reformed twice already, and there's a consensus on the need for a big revision to amend the Senate, the Crown and the federal structure already. And ours isn't the youngest Constitution of the bunch.

    Modern tends to be better in most things. This is no different.

  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2008
    Ohhhkay then.

    Let's just say I disagree.

  • shrykeshryke Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Please, there's far more pressing issues with the US system. The first one that always comes to my mind is the way it's set up forces the Federal Government to REALLY REALLY loosely interpret the InterState Commerce Clause to actually DO stuff. At least, from last I remember.

    But that's all off topic. On topic, every story in this thread?

    Fucked. Up.

    You can charge property with a crime? And then seize it? The fuck?!

  • NoelVeigaNoelVeiga Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Medopine wrote: »
    Ohhhkay then.

    Let's just say I disagree.

    You disagree with the facts about your system I provided (which are accurate as far as I know) or with the idea that they should cause the US to rewrite their Constitution?

    EDIT: Totally honest question, by the way. I really wanna know what you mean, I'm not being sarcastic.

  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2008
    NoelVeiga wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    Ohhhkay then.

    Let's just say I disagree.

    You disagree with the facts about your system I provided (which are accurate as far as I know) or with the idea that they should cause the US to rewrite their Constitution?

    EDIT: Totally honest question, by the way. I really wanna know what you mean, I'm not being sarcastic.

    I don't think we need to rewrite our Constitution.

    But really this is for another thread.

  • kildykildy Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    shryke wrote: »
    Please, there's far more pressing issues with the US system. The first one that always comes to my mind is the way it's set up forces the Federal Government to REALLY REALLY loosely interpret the InterState Commerce Clause to actually DO stuff. At least, from last I remember.

    But that's all off topic. On topic, every story in this thread?

    Fucked. Up.

    You can charge property with a crime? And then seize it? The fuck?!

    The only up side to this entire messed up system is the idea of your sofa being called to testify against your recliner.

    Yeah, Civil Forfeiture is one of those stupid rules that was made up so that if you couldn't prove something in court but totally knew the dude was a crook, you could still hurt him. Which is not how the laws are supposed to work.

  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Was your uncle charged with possessing kiddie porn?
    That was my first thought, and explains exactly why they took what they took.

  • kildykildy Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Yar wrote: »
    Was your uncle charged with possessing kiddie porn?
    That was my first thought, and explains exactly why they took what they took.

    It would be taken as evidence against him then, not civil forfeiture. Though yes, it's a very selective list of shit to take. The photo albums standing out as "uh what?"

  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I don't know, my gut tells me that if you can prove a certain gun was used in a crime, and you know it belongs to Bob, then that gun now belongs to the state regardless of whether or not Bob can be found guilty. I think that's the general idea here.

  • SavantSavant Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    NoelVeiga wrote: »
    Glad to be European.

    No, really, anti americanism aside, having put some study into compared constitutional traditions, my opinion is the US needs to rewrite their Constitution ASAP.

    Proud as you guys are of having the oldest democratic system, you seem painfuly unaware that its age also makes it the patchiest, most archaic one in the western world. Sadly, you've sacralized your Constitution, which is now more a religious than a legal document, and you're not even considering a big time revision at this time.

    You should just start on your electoral system and go on from there.

    But yeah, I'm so sorry about the abuse. Your relative being guilty or not is beyond the point, that procedure is bullshit either way. I knew people here in simiar situations. They had their business seized on suspicion of copyright infringement. They won the case and got their stuff back, plus extra money due to the biz being closed over Christmas season. They weren't happy about it, but at least they didn't go broke due to the procedure.

    EDIT: For the record, the investigation to these guys was IMO very reasonable. They owned a video rental shop AND a DVD copy station, both in the same street. They did a good job of making a legal argument and won, but the investigation wasn't uncalled for. They still got decent compensation money.

    Uh, if you read the damn thing you would know that this should be a violation of the Constitution:
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
    No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    It's hard to blame the Constitution when the government can get away with ignoring the spirit of it and in many cases the wording of it. Due process is supposed to mean something.

  • wazillawazilla Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Yar wrote: »
    I don't know, my gut tells me that if you can prove a certain gun was used in a crime, and you know it belongs to Bob, then that gun now belongs to the state regardless of whether or not Bob can be found guilty. I think that's the general idea here.

    How can you prove that the gun was used in the crime without having possession of the gun in order to see whether or not it was the gun used in the crime?

  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2008
    Yar wrote: »
    I don't know, my gut tells me that if you can prove a certain gun was used in a crime, and you know it belongs to Bob, then that gun now belongs to the state regardless of whether or not Bob can be found guilty. I think that's the general idea here.

    Agreed.

  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Doc wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    I don't know, my gut tells me that if you can prove a certain gun was used in a crime, and you know it belongs to Bob, then that gun now belongs to the state regardless of whether or not Bob can be found guilty. I think that's the general idea here.

    Agreed.

    Well shit, wouldn't you have to go to court to prove it in the first place? Or at least get a warrant that says "Hey, this dude is doing something illegal and we want to prosecute him, but we need the evidence before he deletes it" rather than "shit this house looks good, let's see what phat lewt we can steal from them and get our bureau some cash flow."

  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2008
    bowen wrote: »
    Doc wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    I don't know, my gut tells me that if you can prove a certain gun was used in a crime, and you know it belongs to Bob, then that gun now belongs to the state regardless of whether or not Bob can be found guilty. I think that's the general idea here.

    Agreed.

    Well shit, wouldn't you have to go to court to prove it in the first place? Or at least get a warrant that says "Hey, this dude is doing something illegal and we want to prosecute him, but we need the evidence before he deletes it" rather than "shit this house looks good, let's see what phat lewt we can steal from them and get our bureau some cash flow."

    Yes, I think that you should have to prove it in a court of law.

  • TaramoorTaramoor Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Doc wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    Doc wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    I don't know, my gut tells me that if you can prove a certain gun was used in a crime, and you know it belongs to Bob, then that gun now belongs to the state regardless of whether or not Bob can be found guilty. I think that's the general idea here.

    Agreed.

    Well shit, wouldn't you have to go to court to prove it in the first place? Or at least get a warrant that says "Hey, this dude is doing something illegal and we want to prosecute him, but we need the evidence before he deletes it" rather than "shit this house looks good, let's see what phat lewt we can steal from them and get our bureau some cash flow."

    Yes, I think that you should have to prove it in a court of law.

    I'm with Doc on this one.

    It's really easy to start changing the rules and assuming that everyone is guilty before they're even charged.

    Then again, I'm in the "Better 1,000 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man go to prison" camp.

  • an_altan_alt Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    an_alt wrote: »
    I think the idea of civil forfeiture is fine - ie the feds take your drug profits. The problem is the application which in this case is the burden of proof. It would be reasonable after a criminal conviction to allow civil forfeiture using the civil burden of proof.

    The reverse burden without a conviction is simply appalling.

    Taking goods as the spoils of crime is fine, but you (should?) have to prove that they were obtained through or used to commit crime. Guy files a $10,000 tax return and gets busted with a kilo of cocaine on a speed boat? Fine, take the boat and his Ferrari too. Another guy gets busted with a kilo of cocaine, but doesn't show any unusual assets for his reported income? Fuck off, he's likely a mule.

    I'd be happy if the process could only start after a conviction and would be fine with a lower burden of proof since the conviction already took place.

    Medo can correct me if I have this ass-backwards, but here's what I see as reasonable in American terms.

    Buddy gets convicted of possession with intent to distribute (or whatever it's called) and the state meets a burden of "beyond a reasonable doubt" which means the judge/jury has to be pretty sure. After the conviction, the state goes after the dealers assets and the judge can take the Ferrari "on a preponderance of evidence" which is more of a "seems that way to me" standard.

    The current "prove you're not a criminal" strikes me as completely unconstitutional, but I'm certainly not an expert in these matters.

    Kildy, if the sofa and recliner have been in the same living room for long enough together, wouldn't they be considered to be married?

    Pony wrote:
    I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
    Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
  • deadonthestreetdeadonthestreet Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Doc wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    Doc wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    I don't know, my gut tells me that if you can prove a certain gun was used in a crime, and you know it belongs to Bob, then that gun now belongs to the state regardless of whether or not Bob can be found guilty. I think that's the general idea here.

    Agreed.

    Well shit, wouldn't you have to go to court to prove it in the first place? Or at least get a warrant that says "Hey, this dude is doing something illegal and we want to prosecute him, but we need the evidence before he deletes it" rather than "shit this house looks good, let's see what phat lewt we can steal from them and get our bureau some cash flow."

    Yes, I think that you should have to prove it in a court of law.
    What they do is take your cash, and say to you "You let us keep this cash, or we will file drug charges against you," or "You give us this gun, or we will file gun charges against you." Even if they don't have the evidence to prosecute those charges.

    I wish I was making this up.

  • deadonthestreetdeadonthestreet Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    an_alt wrote: »

    I'd be happy if the process could only start after a conviction and would be fine with a lower burden of proof since the conviction already took place.

    Medo can correct me if I have this ass-backwards, but here's what I see as reasonable in American terms.

    Buddy gets convicted of possession with intent to distribute (or whatever it's called) and the state meets a burden of "beyond a reasonable doubt" which means the judge/jury has to be pretty sure. After the conviction, the state goes after the dealers assets and the judge can take the Ferrari "on a preponderance of evidence" which is more of a "seems that way to me" standard.

    The current "prove you're not a criminal" strikes me as completely unconstitutional, but I'm certainly not an expert in these matters.

    Kildy, if the sofa and recliner have been in the same living room for long enough together, wouldn't they be considered to be married?

    This is pretty much how it works, only there is no need to get a conviction first. So basically they take your shit at a much lower burden of proof.

  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2008
    Doc wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    Doc wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    I don't know, my gut tells me that if you can prove a certain gun was used in a crime, and you know it belongs to Bob, then that gun now belongs to the state regardless of whether or not Bob can be found guilty. I think that's the general idea here.

    Agreed.

    Well shit, wouldn't you have to go to court to prove it in the first place? Or at least get a warrant that says "Hey, this dude is doing something illegal and we want to prosecute him, but we need the evidence before he deletes it" rather than "shit this house looks good, let's see what phat lewt we can steal from them and get our bureau some cash flow."

    Yes, I think that you should have to prove it in a court of law.
    What they do is take your cash, and say to you "You let us keep this cash, or we will file drug charges against you," or "You give us this gun, or we will file gun charges against you." Even if they don't have the evidence to prosecute those charges.

    I wish I was making this up.

    I know; it sucks as-is.

  • PeekingDuckPeekingDuck __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2008
    This will continue until people realize that the Democratic and Republican parties do not serve their interests in the least. Instead people argue over two shit sandwiches in McCain and Obama. My shit sandwich is better! No... mine is! I think this country is finally dying.

«1345
Sign In or Register to comment.