3 ms·

Hard disagree on principle. We have two types of court - criminal for locking people up, and civil for dealing with money. For locking people up, we require bey

Hard disagree on principle. We have two types of court - criminal for locking people up, and civil for dealing with money. For locking people up, we require beyond a reasonable doubt. Better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted and all that. For taking somebody's money, we require it to more likely than not (preponderance of evidence) be the correct result. You call this a "low bar" but it's the same bar for a dispute between individuals. We say - it's only money - we should choose the result we believe to be the most correct, not err on the side of protecting the innocent even if it means letting many more guilty people go free. Why should the state be barred from using both courts? The parents in that news story knew that kid was selling drugs. They smelled it; they saw the money and the clothes and the car; they got helped out on the bills. 9 times out of 10, they are guilty as hell. But it's not 10 times out of 10, so we only take the house the drugs were sold out of, not lock them up.

function_seven 6y ago
The different burdens specified in civil vs. criminal proceedings do make sense. No argument here. It's a stretch to then convert criminal penalties into civil ones via the forfeiture process. Read this passage and tell me if this sounds like anything resembling due process: > A month-and-a-half later police came back—this time to seize their house, forcing the Sourvelises and their children out on the street that day. Authorities came with the electric company in tow to turn off the power and even began locking the doors with screws, the Sourvelises say. Authorities won't comment on the exact circumstances because of pending litigation regarding the case. > Police and prosecutors came armed with a lawsuit against the house itself. So a few things. One, there was no civil court judgement authorizing this. The police decided on their own to take the house. Two, the value of the judgement is literally "how ever much this house is worth." Three, the government sued the house itself. That doesn't even make sense. A house is an inanimate object. People should be sued, not stuff. If the government believes they have a legitimate civil complaint, they're welcome to file it in court. The defendants and the government can then argue their cases, and a judge will use the appropriate legal standards to render a decision. In these cases, the "judgement" is enforced first, and the targets (now without financial resources) must show beyond a preponderance of evidence that they're innocent.
geofft 6y ago
A man breaks into my house and steals my television. A few days later, the police find someone sort of matching the description I give with a few hundred dollars cash in his wallet. He has an alibi, though not very solid proof, and a few details don't line up. The jury doesn't convict him. Am I entitled to the money out of his wallet on a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard? It's only money.
- will4274 6y ago
  Yes. You can sue somebody for stealing from you in civil xourt even if they are found not guilty (or more commonly, not proesecuted) for theft in criminal court and win. It happens all the time. Edit: see e.g. https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/criminal-theft-vs-civil-theft.html https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/criminal-thef...
  - function_seven 6y ago
    Wait, I don't want the bother of bringing a lawsuit. Can I just take the money now? If the alleged thief is innocent, they can sue me for the money to be returned. Also, I didn't just take the cash out of his pocket, I also took his car, as I suspect he used it to drive to my house to commit the crime.

function_seven 6y ago

The different burdens specified in civil vs. criminal proceedings do make sense. No argument here. It's a stretch to then convert criminal penalties into civil ones via the forfeiture process. Read this passage and tell me if this sounds like anything resembling due process: > A month-and-a-half later police came back—this time to seize their house, forcing the Sourvelises and their children out on the street that day. Authorities came with the electric company in tow to turn off the power and even began locking the doors with screws, the Sourvelises say. Authorities won't comment on the exact circumstances because of pending litigation regarding the case. > Police and prosecutors came armed with a lawsuit against the house itself. So a few things. One, there was no civil court judgement authorizing this. The police decided on their own to take the house. Two, the value of the judgement is literally "how ever much this house is worth." Three, the government sued the house itself. That doesn't even make sense. A house is an inanimate object. People should be sued, not stuff. If the government believes they have a legitimate civil complaint, they're welcome to file it in court. The defendants and the government can then argue their cases, and a judge will use the appropriate legal standards to render a decision. In these cases, the "judgement" is enforced first, and the targets (now without financial resources) must show beyond a preponderance of evidence that they're innocent.

geofft 6y ago

A man breaks into my house and steals my television. A few days later, the police find someone sort of matching the description I give with a few hundred dollars cash in his wallet. He has an alibi, though not very solid proof, and a few details don't line up. The jury doesn't convict him. Am I entitled to the money out of his wallet on a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard? It's only money.

will4274 6y ago
Yes. You can sue somebody for stealing from you in civil xourt even if they are found not guilty (or more commonly, not proesecuted) for theft in criminal court and win. It happens all the time. Edit: see e.g. https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/criminal-theft-vs-civil-theft.html https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/criminal-thef...
- function_seven 6y ago
  Wait, I don't want the bother of bringing a lawsuit. Can I just take the money now? If the alleged thief is innocent, they can sue me for the money to be returned. Also, I didn't just take the cash out of his pocket, I also took his car, as I suspect he used it to drive to my house to commit the crime.