3 ms·
>>>For example, CF is used to return stolen good to the owner. It's also used to keep criminals from using the fruits of their crime prior to conviction. Should
by patmcc 11y ago
>>>For example, CF is used to return stolen good to the owner. It's also used to keep criminals from using the fruits of their crime prior to conviction. Should a bank robber be allowed to use the money from their heist to pay for their defense? Should the embezzler be allowed to transfer the money in question to locations where the government has no jurisdiction?
Easy fix; hold/freeze the bank robber's funds (or the crack dealers house, or whatever other property) temporarily - if they're convicted, take it permanently. If they're not convicted (be that acquitted, charges dropped, charges never laid, whatever) they should get the property back. Anything else is ridiculous.
- kbenson 11y agoThat's still civil forfeiture, just an alteration for the rules in which it is allowed and how it must be carried out. Which is fine, and actually supports my position, which is that a critical look needs to be taken before we decide to just abolish it completely. Really, I just think acting like there will be no negative consequences of abolishing it, or that the negative consequences will be easily outweighed by the positives, without bothering to actually bothering to look at the pros and cons is an unsupportable position.