4 ms·

I don't know if it's telling that as of this moment, all of the top-level comments to this thread are currently gray (except for otterly's assertion that it sho

by bmelton 11y ago

I don't know if it's telling that as of this moment, all of the top-level comments to this thread are currently gray (except for otterly's assertion that it should be dated). I think it's worth noting that civil asset forfeiture, while controversial, isn't necessarily evil in itself, if done with a high bar to seizure. I think it's fair to say that someone who makes a fortune using illegal means should have to surrender that fortune. Where asset forfeiture falls down on this is that FAR too often, no illegal acts are proven before forfeiture is initiated, and substantive due process should need to be the hurdle before that happens. This will of course lead to the unfortunate likelihood that "bad people" will use some of those fortunes in their legal defenses, but if "innocent until proven guilty" is to be our standard, and it's a mighty good one IMHO, then so be it. The alternative is much worse (again, IMHO), which is that those without fortunes, and hence, without the means of adequate legal representation, are simply unable to defend themselves at all except through court-appointed lawyers of potentially questionable effectiveness. The trick, of course, is that the state has a hurdle before stealing goods, and they have no incentive to impose such hurdles upon themselves. I don't know what the fix for that is, short of being really loud and riotous, but someone else's off-the-cuff remark the other day struck a chord to me (though not without its own potential pitfalls) -- limit attorneys general and other positions of that sort to only defense and criminal attorneys with a history of having defended the rights of citizens. If we accept that the job (or at least a job) of the government is to defend the rights of the citizenry, then such an exclusion makes a certain amount of sense. As it stands, the state, and its agents, have a disproportionally stacked playing field.

wfo 11y ago
I don't think it would be unreasonable to require that every prosecutor have worked for 2+ years as a public defender. Helps with the shortage of public defenders as well.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > I don't think it would be unreasonable to require that every prosecutor have worked for 2+ years as a public defender. There may be a serious problem with quality of representation if a substantial portion of the people working as public defenders are doing it to meet a checkbox on the way to their planned career as public prosecutors.
  - ScottBurson 11y ago
    There's a serious problem with quality of representation already. Simply having more public defenders seems likely to me to help, even if some of them aren't as emotionally committed to the job as others. There's also the possibility that someone who starts out just checking a box will discover that there are more shades of gray in these situations than they had realized.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      If you want more public defenders, just fund the public defenders offices better, so that they can pay more lawyers, and pay each of them better. No need to compel people who want to be prosecutors act as public defenders. Just arrange the economic incentives properly.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
  - wfo 11y ago
    I don't think so. I think generally the A-type lawyers on their way to be prosecutors are primarily interested in winning at all costs no matter how it effects others (why else be a prosecutor?). If someone is the kind of person who wants to be a prosecutor a losing record is a losing record -- you hate it with all of your being no matter the reason. Why not have society leverage that attitude by making them win protecting lives instead of destroying them for a little while? Plus the entire point of the idea is to forcibly inject empathy into them so they are a little more careful and judicious with the enormous amount of unquestioned power they will one day wield.
bradleyjg 11y ago
>> I think it's worth noting that civil asset forfeiture, while controversial, isn't necessarily evil in itself, if done with a high bar to seizure. The civil part of civil forfeiture is what keeps the bar too low. Criminal forfeiture requires a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt and the full panoply of criminal protections. That said, the Economist didn't quite get the story right. The underlying case was about whether and when the government can freeze access to property that would be criminally forfeiture in the event of a criminal conviction. So it really doesn't have much to do with civil forfeiture at all. A little over a year ago I wrote a comment discussing the history of the constitutionality of civil forfeiture that might be interesting: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8582155 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8582155

by bmelton 11y ago

wfo 11y ago

I don't think it would be unreasonable to require that every prosecutor have worked for 2+ years as a public defender. Helps with the shortage of public defenders as well.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> I don't think it would be unreasonable to require that every prosecutor have worked for 2+ years as a public defender. There may be a serious problem with quality of representation if a substantial portion of the people working as public defenders are doing it to meet a checkbox on the way to their planned career as public prosecutors.
- ScottBurson 11y ago
  There's a serious problem with quality of representation already. Simply having more public defenders seems likely to me to help, even if some of them aren't as emotionally committed to the job as others. There's also the possibility that someone who starts out just checking a box will discover that there are more shades of gray in these situations than they had realized.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    If you want more public defenders, just fund the public defenders offices better, so that they can pay more lawyers, and pay each of them better. No need to compel people who want to be prosecutors act as public defenders. Just arrange the economic incentives properly.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
- wfo 11y ago
  I don't think so. I think generally the A-type lawyers on their way to be prosecutors are primarily interested in winning at all costs no matter how it effects others (why else be a prosecutor?). If someone is the kind of person who wants to be a prosecutor a losing record is a losing record -- you hate it with all of your being no matter the reason. Why not have society leverage that attitude by making them win protecting lives instead of destroying them for a little while? Plus the entire point of the idea is to forcibly inject empathy into them so they are a little more careful and judicious with the enormous amount of unquestioned power they will one day wield.

bradleyjg 11y ago

>> I think it's worth noting that civil asset forfeiture, while controversial, isn't necessarily evil in itself, if done with a high bar to seizure. The civil part of civil forfeiture is what keeps the bar too low. Criminal forfeiture requires a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt and the full panoply of criminal protections. That said, the Economist didn't quite get the story right. The underlying case was about whether and when the government can freeze access to property that would be criminally forfeiture in the event of a criminal conviction. So it really doesn't have much to do with civil forfeiture at all. A little over a year ago I wrote a comment discussing the history of the constitutionality of civil forfeiture that might be interesting: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8582155 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8582155