3 ms·

Because "nor shall any person... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...". 5th Amendment to the Constitution. Unless you think

Because "nor shall any person... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...". 5th Amendment to the Constitution. Unless you think "due process" == "Because I said so", it is both legally and morally a travesty.

dragonwriter 10y ago
Civil forfeiture has considerably more procedural protection than "because I said so"; which is not to say that certain applications of it are not deeply problematic, but hyperbole is not helpful in discussing them.
- snsr 10y ago
  > Civil forfeiture has considerably more procedural protection than "because I said so" Not really - the DEA, state and local police regularly steal cash and other belongings from US citizens without any probable cause.
- snark42 10y ago
  > Civil forfeiture has considerably more procedural protection than "because I said so"; Not at all... It goes something like this "We found this $10K in a car on a known drug route with out of state plates, prove it's not a drug money." The issues is that it's really hard to prove your money is innocent if, say, you'd been working a job and saving cash (don't trust the banks) for 10 years and are moving across the country.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > It goes something like this "We found this $10K in a car on a known drug route with out of state plates, prove it's not a drug money." Except, not, because the government bears the burden of proving that it is drug money, assuming you assert a claim that the funds should not be subject to forfeiture. (If they meet that burden and you wish to keep the money anyway by invoking the innocent owner principal, you have the burden of proving that you were not involved in the illegal conduct that made the money subject to forfeiture or acted to end it as soon as you became aware, though.) > The issues is that it's really hard to prove your money is innocent No, though there is a legitimate issue that it may be difficult to afford decent representation to do a good job of countering the government's attempt to prove your money guilty if, you know, the government's just seized your life savings. (This is actually related to the reason I am inclined to think that the right to publicly-provided counsel ought to apply in any legal case pursued against an indigent defendant by the government, whether or not it is a criminal case.)
gohrt 10y ago
PP was saying that "money laundering being a crime" is not a travesty, not that civil forfeiture is not a travesty.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
emodendroket 10y ago
Yes. Money laundering is a crime, tried in normal courts.

dragonwriter 10y ago

Civil forfeiture has considerably more procedural protection than "because I said so"; which is not to say that certain applications of it are not deeply problematic, but hyperbole is not helpful in discussing them.

snsr 10y ago
> Civil forfeiture has considerably more procedural protection than "because I said so" Not really - the DEA, state and local police regularly steal cash and other belongings from US citizens without any probable cause.
snark42 10y ago
> Civil forfeiture has considerably more procedural protection than "because I said so"; Not at all... It goes something like this "We found this $10K in a car on a known drug route with out of state plates, prove it's not a drug money." The issues is that it's really hard to prove your money is innocent if, say, you'd been working a job and saving cash (don't trust the banks) for 10 years and are moving across the country.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > It goes something like this "We found this $10K in a car on a known drug route with out of state plates, prove it's not a drug money." Except, not, because the government bears the burden of proving that it is drug money, assuming you assert a claim that the funds should not be subject to forfeiture. (If they meet that burden and you wish to keep the money anyway by invoking the innocent owner principal, you have the burden of proving that you were not involved in the illegal conduct that made the money subject to forfeiture or acted to end it as soon as you became aware, though.) > The issues is that it's really hard to prove your money is innocent No, though there is a legitimate issue that it may be difficult to afford decent representation to do a good job of countering the government's attempt to prove your money guilty if, you know, the government's just seized your life savings. (This is actually related to the reason I am inclined to think that the right to publicly-provided counsel ought to apply in any legal case pursued against an indigent defendant by the government, whether or not it is a criminal case.)

gohrt 10y ago

PP was saying that "money laundering being a crime" is not a travesty, not that civil forfeiture is not a travesty.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

emodendroket 10y ago

Yes. Money laundering is a crime, tried in normal courts.