3 ms·

It's not just "unfair", it's arguably unconstitutional. Our justice system is based on innocent until proven guilty. If you're found with 10,000$ in cash, even

by eridius 10y ago

It's not just "unfair", it's arguably unconstitutional. Our justice system is based on innocent until proven guilty. If you're found with 10,000$ in cash, even if you think there's a 90% chance that money was the result of illegal activity, that probability alone is not grounds to declare the money illegal. The fact that asset forfeiture laws have been twisted to allow this kind of thing in contradiction to the rest of our justice system is why people get so worked up over it.

rayiner 10y ago
It's arguably not unconstitutional. You need to prove someone "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" to take away their property as punishment for a crime. But the general rule for contesting whether their ownership of the property is legitimate to begin with is "more likely than not." If I sue you saying that you kicked me out of my house and are now living in it, I only have to prove that with 51% certainty.
- eridius 10y ago
  But you still have to prove it. Police are seizing cash without proving anything, merely on the suspicion that someone carrying that much cash might possibly be using it in connection with illegal activities. Heck, police are seizing assets that clearly were owned legally simply because of a tenuous connection with drugs (e.g. seizing a car because drugs may have been transported in the car at some point). Basically, the simply act of owning $10k in cash should not be considered sufficient evidence that you shouldn't be allowed to own that $10k. Regardless of the bar you're setting, that suspicion simply isn't proof of anything. The reason why I said it's arguably unconstitutional is because the way asset seizure works, the victim is put in the position of having to prove that they do legally own the asset, rather than having the police be put in the position of proving that they don't legally own it. Our justice system is based on innocent until proven guilty, so why does asset seizure work any differently? This is yet another bad consequence of the war on drugs, I just don't understand why our judicial system continues to allow for this perversion of justice.

by eridius 10y ago

rayiner 10y ago

It's arguably not unconstitutional. You need to prove someone "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" to take away their property as punishment for a crime. But the general rule for contesting whether their ownership of the property is legitimate to begin with is "more likely than not." If I sue you saying that you kicked me out of my house and are now living in it, I only have to prove that with 51% certainty.

eridius 10y ago
But you still have to prove it. Police are seizing cash without proving anything, merely on the suspicion that someone carrying that much cash might possibly be using it in connection with illegal activities. Heck, police are seizing assets that clearly were owned legally simply because of a tenuous connection with drugs (e.g. seizing a car because drugs may have been transported in the car at some point). Basically, the simply act of owning $10k in cash should not be considered sufficient evidence that you shouldn't be allowed to own that $10k. Regardless of the bar you're setting, that suspicion simply isn't proof of anything. The reason why I said it's arguably unconstitutional is because the way asset seizure works, the victim is put in the position of having to prove that they do legally own the asset, rather than having the police be put in the position of proving that they don't legally own it. Our justice system is based on innocent until proven guilty, so why does asset seizure work any differently? This is yet another bad consequence of the war on drugs, I just don't understand why our judicial system continues to allow for this perversion of justice.