4 ms·

I'll upvote because you're not entirely wrong. It's entirely reasonable to require that the proceeds of criminal activity be taken from the criminals. Whether

by adekok 10y ago

I'll upvote because you're not entirely wrong. It's entirely reasonable to require that the proceeds of criminal activity be taken from the criminals. Whether it's a stolen car, drugs, or money made from selling a stolen car and drugs. It's all (mostly) similar. The devil is in the details, though. The rampant "theft by cop" is where you have money, and they take it. No charges, much less conviction. It's "guilty until proven innocent", which violates one of the fundamental principles of our justice system. It's outright corruption.

wyldfire 10y ago
> Whether it's a stolen car, drugs, or money made from selling a stolen car and drugs. It's all (mostly) similar. It's not that similar IMO. Stolen cars have owners to whom you can return the property, or litigants who can sue you to replace it. But selling contraband, unlike theft, doesn't have a victim that can be compensated by returning the proceeds. The government steps in and declares themselves the victims of this crime and claims the proceeds.
- ocschwar 10y ago
  So far so good. The problem is they do it before convicting you of anything.
  - brianwawok 10y ago
    Yes, this is obviously a problem. I think holding it during a trial could be reasonable, but the burden of guilt should not be "guilty until proven innocent"
  - wfo 10y ago
    Actually, worse: they seize your assets so that you cannot afford to mount a solid defense at your trial. It's a lot easier to convince someone to take a plea (i.e. confess falsely under duress) if they are bankrupt and destitute and can't afford proper counsel.
- adekok 10y ago
  > But selling contraband, unlike theft, doesn't have a victim that can be compensated by returning the proceeds. The point is largely that people shouldn't legally profit from illegal activities. Whether the profit is cash or tangible goods, the principle is the same.
greenleafjacob 10y ago
That's like being found with a bloody knife and they arrest you and you say you're "guilty until proven innocent". In reality the standard is preponderance of evidence and you are ignoring the fact that courts have ruled that being found with large volumes of cash is itself suspicious.

by adekok 10y ago

wyldfire 10y ago

> Whether it's a stolen car, drugs, or money made from selling a stolen car and drugs. It's all (mostly) similar. It's not that similar IMO. Stolen cars have owners to whom you can return the property, or litigants who can sue you to replace it. But selling contraband, unlike theft, doesn't have a victim that can be compensated by returning the proceeds. The government steps in and declares themselves the victims of this crime and claims the proceeds.

ocschwar 10y ago
So far so good. The problem is they do it before convicting you of anything.
- brianwawok 10y ago
  Yes, this is obviously a problem. I think holding it during a trial could be reasonable, but the burden of guilt should not be "guilty until proven innocent"
- wfo 10y ago
  Actually, worse: they seize your assets so that you cannot afford to mount a solid defense at your trial. It's a lot easier to convince someone to take a plea (i.e. confess falsely under duress) if they are bankrupt and destitute and can't afford proper counsel.
adekok 10y ago
> But selling contraband, unlike theft, doesn't have a victim that can be compensated by returning the proceeds. The point is largely that people shouldn't legally profit from illegal activities. Whether the profit is cash or tangible goods, the principle is the same.

greenleafjacob 10y ago

That's like being found with a bloody knife and they arrest you and you say you're "guilty until proven innocent". In reality the standard is preponderance of evidence and you are ignoring the fact that courts have ruled that being found with large volumes of cash is itself suspicious.