4 ms·

> In the court case, a man had his car seized when caught selling a few hundred dollars of heroine. Interesting perspective there. Some people think that heroi

> In the court case, a man had his car seized when caught selling a few hundred dollars of heroine. Interesting perspective there. Some people think that heroin dealers deserve to be fully hung, drawn and quartered, their head placed on a spike to be pecked at by the crows. Others might think that 'it was just a bit of dope, why should he have to forfeit anything for that?'. The car is potentially proceeds of crime it also enables the crime of dealing to be carried out. A reasonable case for him forfeiting it can definitely be made without that being the police preying off the 'victim'. In the UK any police action that leads to people losing stuff as it is deemed proceeds of crime goes to the crown, i.e. the queen, rather than to the local police department. In the USA you need something similar so that the police can't be accused of being on the take.

pixl97 8y ago
>The car is potentially proceeds of crime Then the state must prove that case rather than it being in implicit assumption.
- Theodores 8y ago
  In the UK the prosecution - 'Crown Prosecution Service' - present the mobile phone evidence and the accused is able to provide evidence for legitimate income. The court then decide whether to take the house and cars. Simple.
  - pixl97 8y ago
    Um, no that is not the state proving that the car was bought with 'drug money' that is the accused inability to prove that it wasn't.
larkeith 8y ago
> The car is potentially proceeds of crime The car was reliably documented as being purchased from his father's life insurance proceeds. There was no question of it being potentially purchased by illegal means. Far more importantly, the entire question is irrelevant: we have standardized maximum fines and the burden of proof for very good reasons. Civil forfeiture skips both, making a mockery of the justice system for profit. Those who believe current punishments for a given crime insufficient should seek to alter the law, whereas exorbitant forfeiture devalues the entire purpose - it serves neither as effective discouragement (being utterly arbitrary and unrelated to criminal magnitude) nor to rehabilitate (rather, the reverse, as departing inmates' tendencies to return will only be exacerbated by forfeiture-induced poverty).
- da_chicken 8y ago
  > The car was reliably documented as being purchased from his father's life insurance proceeds. There was no question of it being potentially purchased by illegal means. This is why it was such a perfect case for the Supreme Court to rule upon. It was clear that the only justification the state could give for the confiscation was the single conviction. Cheers to Timbs for being willing to take this all the way to get such an important ruling!
jpindar 8y ago
> it also enables the crime of dealing to be carried out His hands also enabled the crime to be carried out, should they be chopped off?

pixl97 8y ago

>The car is potentially proceeds of crime Then the state must prove that case rather than it being in implicit assumption.

Theodores 8y ago
In the UK the prosecution - 'Crown Prosecution Service' - present the mobile phone evidence and the accused is able to provide evidence for legitimate income. The court then decide whether to take the house and cars. Simple.
- pixl97 8y ago
  Um, no that is not the state proving that the car was bought with 'drug money' that is the accused inability to prove that it wasn't.

larkeith 8y ago

> The car is potentially proceeds of crime The car was reliably documented as being purchased from his father's life insurance proceeds. There was no question of it being potentially purchased by illegal means. Far more importantly, the entire question is irrelevant: we have standardized maximum fines and the burden of proof for very good reasons. Civil forfeiture skips both, making a mockery of the justice system for profit. Those who believe current punishments for a given crime insufficient should seek to alter the law, whereas exorbitant forfeiture devalues the entire purpose - it serves neither as effective discouragement (being utterly arbitrary and unrelated to criminal magnitude) nor to rehabilitate (rather, the reverse, as departing inmates' tendencies to return will only be exacerbated by forfeiture-induced poverty).

da_chicken 8y ago
> The car was reliably documented as being purchased from his father's life insurance proceeds. There was no question of it being potentially purchased by illegal means. This is why it was such a perfect case for the Supreme Court to rule upon. It was clear that the only justification the state could give for the confiscation was the single conviction. Cheers to Timbs for being willing to take this all the way to get such an important ruling!

jpindar 8y ago

> it also enables the crime of dealing to be carried out His hands also enabled the crime to be carried out, should they be chopped off?