3 ms·
I know that these are different but the argument should be the same. The legal standard of conviction is not being met. In civil forfeiture, that standard is no
by CalChris 10y ago
I know that these are different but the argument should be the same. The legal standard of conviction is not being met. In civil forfeiture, that standard is not being met a priori. In this case where the defendants are ultimately acquitted, that standard is not being met a posteriori. But the argument (IMO) is the same, the legal standard is not being met.
- dragonwriter 10y ago> The legal standard of conviction is not being met. But it's clear, even outside of forfeiture, that that isn't a requirement for losing property to the state for wrongful conduct; civil process (with the government having a cause of action) does exist even outside of forfeiture, even for conduct which also has criminal punishment. There has never been a principal accepted in this country that all government legal remedies against individuals require criminal conviction, which is what you seem to be asserting ad the principal with forfeiture. It's clear that certain types of penalties require criminal conviction, and it's clear (now at least, though that should have been obvious before) that penalties expressly premised on criminal conviction require criminal conviction. But forfeiture doesn't really fall into either of those categories.
- kreneskyp 10y agoCan you expand on why civil forfeiture based on suspected criminality shouldn't require criminal conviction? Forcibily taking money from someone for a civil reason (e.g. child support) is obviously different from taking money because you suspect a criminal offense.