4 ms·

Depriving someone of their property – even temporarily – and forcing them to spend otherwise profitable time making a claim to get it back is a form of damage.

Depriving someone of their property – even temporarily – and forcing them to spend otherwise profitable time making a claim to get it back is a form of damage. What you're proposing would allow agents of the government to damage people as frequently as they wanted, with impunity.

harryh 10y ago
You realize you can be arrested and held in jail before a trial right? That's exactly same thing as confiscating assets pending a trial.
- geggam 10y ago
  only for a short period of time before getting to address a judge
  - harryh 10y ago
    That's actually not true at all. You can be held in jail for months pending completion of a trial depending on your ability to make bail and the seriousness of the crime in question.
- facetube 10y ago
  You didn't mention a trial in your previous post, but rather a low standard of evidence to "make a claim". In that scenario, the burden of proof is on the victim of the property seizure rather than the accuser, which makes it different IMO.
  - harryh 10y ago
    The burden of proof in civil asset forfeiture trials (and there is a trial) is still on the plaintiff. It is not on the victim.
    - facetube 10y ago
      False, at least in the US. The government's case is considered to be against the property, not against you. The standard of legal proof is a preponderance of evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. "Assets [are only] returned if [the] owner proves [his/her] innocence". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States#Civil_versus_criminal_forfeiture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United... for details.
      - harryh 10y ago
        "preponderance of evidence" is still a burden on the plaintiff. It's just a lower standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt".
        facetube 10y ago
        In practice in the United States it's been shown to present little to no burden. These cases have been widely covered in the press. Again, see the link.

harryh 10y ago

You realize you can be arrested and held in jail before a trial right? That's exactly same thing as confiscating assets pending a trial.

geggam 10y ago
only for a short period of time before getting to address a judge
- harryh 10y ago
  That's actually not true at all. You can be held in jail for months pending completion of a trial depending on your ability to make bail and the seriousness of the crime in question.
facetube 10y ago
You didn't mention a trial in your previous post, but rather a low standard of evidence to "make a claim". In that scenario, the burden of proof is on the victim of the property seizure rather than the accuser, which makes it different IMO.
- harryh 10y ago
  The burden of proof in civil asset forfeiture trials (and there is a trial) is still on the plaintiff. It is not on the victim.
  - facetube 10y ago
    False, at least in the US. The government's case is considered to be against the property, not against you. The standard of legal proof is a preponderance of evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. "Assets [are only] returned if [the] owner proves [his/her] innocence". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States#Civil_versus_criminal_forfeiture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United... for details.
    - harryh 10y ago
      "preponderance of evidence" is still a burden on the plaintiff. It's just a lower standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt".
      - facetube 10y ago
        In practice in the United States it's been shown to present little to no burden. These cases have been widely covered in the press. Again, see the link.