3 ms·

> But even non-sentient objects, specifically guns, sometimes have the right to representation Wait. What? Do you have any links for more info on this? I can

by saganus 11y ago

> But even non-sentient objects, specifically guns, sometimes have the right to representation Wait. What? Do you have any links for more info on this? I can't even start to imagine what does it even mean for an object to have legal representation. Is this something known to happen in other countries (i.e. this is an artifact due to complex interaction inside legal systems) or just in the US?

antognini 11y ago
I believe GP is referring to asset forfeiture. Asset forfeiture is a legal fiction in which objects associated with a crime are charged. So if drug dealer was transacting drug deals in his car, the government could seize the car and charge the car with a crime. The owner would then have to try to represent the car and prove the car's innocence in the crime. But because asset forfeiture is normally a civil proceeding, the burden of proof is much lower for the government (preponderance of the evidence rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt). So even if the owner was found not guilty of the original crime, the asset can still be found "guilty" and seized. Here's a good flowchart on the rules that the owner must go through (at the federal level) to win their assets back: http://reason.com/assets/mc/2015_06/forfeitchart.jpg http://reason.com/assets/mc/2015_06/forfeitchart.jpg These two Wikipedia articles have more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_rem_jurisdiction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_rem_jurisdiction
- saganus 11y ago
  Thanks a lot for the info. I've heard about asset forfeiture before, but I had no idea it worked that way. Seems a bit insane that you can charge objects with crimes.
sandworm101 11y ago
There are several jurisdictions that forbid cops from destroying seized weapons. They must be sold to the public or used by police. In a couple of these jurisdictions, if they really want to destroy the weapons they need a court order. Getting that court order requires a hearing at which "the guns" are represented by an attorney. I haven't witnessed such a proceeding, but theoretically the state may have to provide that attorney. I presume the NRA could also stand in. So yes, inanimate objects can sometimes have more of a right to representation by an attorney than these actual human children.

by saganus 11y ago

antognini 11y ago

I believe GP is referring to asset forfeiture. Asset forfeiture is a legal fiction in which objects associated with a crime are charged. So if drug dealer was transacting drug deals in his car, the government could seize the car and charge the car with a crime. The owner would then have to try to represent the car and prove the car's innocence in the crime. But because asset forfeiture is normally a civil proceeding, the burden of proof is much lower for the government (preponderance of the evidence rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt). So even if the owner was found not guilty of the original crime, the asset can still be found "guilty" and seized. Here's a good flowchart on the rules that the owner must go through (at the federal level) to win their assets back: http://reason.com/assets/mc/2015_06/forfeitchart.jpg http://reason.com/assets/mc/2015_06/forfeitchart.jpg These two Wikipedia articles have more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_rem_jurisdiction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_rem_jurisdiction

saganus 11y ago
Thanks a lot for the info. I've heard about asset forfeiture before, but I had no idea it worked that way. Seems a bit insane that you can charge objects with crimes.

sandworm101 11y ago

There are several jurisdictions that forbid cops from destroying seized weapons. They must be sold to the public or used by police. In a couple of these jurisdictions, if they really want to destroy the weapons they need a court order. Getting that court order requires a hearing at which "the guns" are represented by an attorney. I haven't witnessed such a proceeding, but theoretically the state may have to provide that attorney. I presume the NRA could also stand in. So yes, inanimate objects can sometimes have more of a right to representation by an attorney than these actual human children.