3 ms·

You have to show up to court to defend yourself. This is an unfortunate reality of the world. ...but poor folks working hourly jobs that cannot schedule a da

by q1w2 5y ago

You have to show up to court to defend yourself. This is an unfortunate reality of the world. ...but poor folks working hourly jobs that cannot schedule a day off - are not usually the people having tens of thousands of dollars in cash seized.

lolwut09883 5y ago
When someone steals your cash and makes you go to court to beg for it back, I think that might make a significant difference in your rich/poor status, huh? Perhaps you can finish that thought with some compassion, and agree that this is a stupid system?
lupire 5y ago
Poor people can save up to buy an inexpensive car.
klyrs 5y ago
It might not be just one day. When it's the TSA, you're getting robbed at an airport, so roughly 50% of the time, nowhere near where you live. So it's a few days' trip, plus airfair, probably a hotel, plus finding a lawyer to represent you, plus legal fees. And that's if you're confident that you can prove your innocence -- which is an immensely backwards notion of justice. Also, interacting with the legal system in this manner is irresistible bait for cops -- folks are rightly intimidated, because cops can generally make your life hell through perfectly legal procedures. And, actually, poor people frequently don't trust banks and will keep their life savings in cash. That can easily be tens of thousands of dollars, it only takes putting away $500 a year for 20 years. Do you think they're gonna have adequate records to prove that all of that was legal income?
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > And that's if you're confident that you can prove your innocence -- which is an immensely backwards notion of justice You don't generally have to “prove your innocence”, the burden of proof in federal forfeiture is on the government to prove that the property is subject to forfeiture. 18 USC § 983(c) The only case where you would have to prove your innocence is for the “innocent owner” affirmative defense that applies only after the government has met that burden; that is, where the government proves then seized property was, e.g., used in crime, but you assert that as the owner, you were either unaware of the use of the property in the crime or did everything reasonable to stop it being used in crime once you became aware. 18 USC § 983(d). It obviously isn’t an issue when the theory of forfeiture charged and proven by the government is your crime.

by q1w2 5y ago

lolwut09883 5y ago

When someone steals your cash and makes you go to court to beg for it back, I think that might make a significant difference in your rich/poor status, huh? Perhaps you can finish that thought with some compassion, and agree that this is a stupid system?

lupire 5y ago

Poor people can save up to buy an inexpensive car.

klyrs 5y ago

It might not be just one day. When it's the TSA, you're getting robbed at an airport, so roughly 50% of the time, nowhere near where you live. So it's a few days' trip, plus airfair, probably a hotel, plus finding a lawyer to represent you, plus legal fees. And that's if you're confident that you can prove your innocence -- which is an immensely backwards notion of justice. Also, interacting with the legal system in this manner is irresistible bait for cops -- folks are rightly intimidated, because cops can generally make your life hell through perfectly legal procedures. And, actually, poor people frequently don't trust banks and will keep their life savings in cash. That can easily be tens of thousands of dollars, it only takes putting away $500 a year for 20 years. Do you think they're gonna have adequate records to prove that all of that was legal income?

dragonwriter 5y ago
> And that's if you're confident that you can prove your innocence -- which is an immensely backwards notion of justice You don't generally have to “prove your innocence”, the burden of proof in federal forfeiture is on the government to prove that the property is subject to forfeiture. 18 USC § 983(c) The only case where you would have to prove your innocence is for the “innocent owner” affirmative defense that applies only after the government has met that burden; that is, where the government proves then seized property was, e.g., used in crime, but you assert that as the owner, you were either unaware of the use of the property in the crime or did everything reasonable to stop it being used in crime once you became aware. 18 USC § 983(d). It obviously isn’t an issue when the theory of forfeiture charged and proven by the government is your crime.