3 ms·

> The objection is due process related including preventing them from using their funds to hire an attorney whilst teams of attorneys are brought to bear agains

> The objection is due process related including preventing them from using their funds to hire an attorney whilst teams of attorneys are brought to bear against them. This is my objection. It's obscene that the full resources of the state are brought down on defendants expected to subsist only on "modest living expenses." It's one thing when your opponent has the backing of their own narco-state, but these are presumably a bunch of 20-somethings with a net worth of less than $1M. You can't challenge someone to a duel and then handicap them by taking away their gun and making them wear a bag over their head. That's not a fight, that's an execution.

Brockenstein 8y ago
The only problem is you're now arguing that someone who has enriched themselves illegally, stolen assets, or defrauded people can use that money to defend themselves and potentially drain it down to nothing, at which point they claim they can't be expected to pay restitution if they lose. Yeah, no way that won't be abused... There isn't a perfect system. And your argument that they need every cent of that money to mount a defense might be more than a little overblown.
- Retric 8y ago
  The criminal justice system is not based on the assumption that people are guilty before trial. Otherwise trials would be pointless. Further, they could easily spend several times that much money defending themselves. Sure, if they had billions then that's a meaningful argument but not for <300k.
- jstarfish 8y ago
  I don't disagree with your sentiment, but the flaw with your argument is that you're presuming the proceeds were acquired illegally before a trial is even conducted. We don't yet know that what they did was illegal. We don't even know if the right people are being prosecuted in the first place. That's the entire point of the trial. We may not have a perfect system but presumptions that defendants are "obviously guilty" or "don't actually need all that money" defeats the purpose of having a system at all. Like arbitration, there's literally no point-- we're supposed to have progressed beyond kangaroo courts with arbitrary rules weighted in favor of the prosecution.
ataturk 8y ago
Welcome to corporo-fascism, friend.

Brockenstein 8y ago

The only problem is you're now arguing that someone who has enriched themselves illegally, stolen assets, or defrauded people can use that money to defend themselves and potentially drain it down to nothing, at which point they claim they can't be expected to pay restitution if they lose. Yeah, no way that won't be abused... There isn't a perfect system. And your argument that they need every cent of that money to mount a defense might be more than a little overblown.

Retric 8y ago
The criminal justice system is not based on the assumption that people are guilty before trial. Otherwise trials would be pointless. Further, they could easily spend several times that much money defending themselves. Sure, if they had billions then that's a meaningful argument but not for <300k.
jstarfish 8y ago
I don't disagree with your sentiment, but the flaw with your argument is that you're presuming the proceeds were acquired illegally before a trial is even conducted. We don't yet know that what they did was illegal. We don't even know if the right people are being prosecuted in the first place. That's the entire point of the trial. We may not have a perfect system but presumptions that defendants are "obviously guilty" or "don't actually need all that money" defeats the purpose of having a system at all. Like arbitration, there's literally no point-- we're supposed to have progressed beyond kangaroo courts with arbitrary rules weighted in favor of the prosecution.

ataturk 8y ago

Welcome to corporo-fascism, friend.