3 ms·

... 1) «testify against this person, which did the crime, or state may found you guilty and seize your home and business» and 2) «don't testify against this per

by drran 5y ago

... 1) «testify against this person, which did the crime, or state may found you guilty and seize your home and business» and 2) «don't testify against this person, which did the crime, or we will do a crime against you». Unless you or/and accuser are criminals, the gap is huge. :-/

everforward 5y ago
I think you have more faith in the government than I do. Just breaking that down: > 1) «testify against this person, which did the crime, or state may found you guilty and seize your home and business» This is really "testify against this person, who we say did the crime, or the state will seize your goods without charging you with a crime". Civil forfeiture doesn't require any kind of conviction against you, because they're technically charging your property. > Unless you or/and accuser are criminals, the gap is huge. :-/ Civil forfeiture doesn't require anyone to be a criminal; innocent people have their stuff seized all the time. Also, it's incredibly easy to find something you can charge someone with to get them to cooperate. You ever not paid taxes on something you ordered on the internet? That's tax fraud, you're a criminal and have to cooperate. Ever gone more than 15 over the speed limit? That's a crime in many states, you're a criminal and have to cooperate. Even if you know you're innocent of what they want to charge you with, your options are to either cooperate, or spend the next year or two in jail fighting your case while you spend tens or hundreds of thousands on lawyers. Also, whether someone is a criminal or not is rather arbitrary when the state gets involved, because the state defines what a crime is, and thus who the criminals are. E.g. if I tried to compel someone to testify by threatening to steal their car, that makes me a criminal. If the state does it, it's not, because they've written the rules that way.

by drran 5y ago

everforward 5y ago

I think you have more faith in the government than I do. Just breaking that down: > 1) «testify against this person, which did the crime, or state may found you guilty and seize your home and business» This is really "testify against this person, who we say did the crime, or the state will seize your goods without charging you with a crime". Civil forfeiture doesn't require any kind of conviction against you, because they're technically charging your property. > Unless you or/and accuser are criminals, the gap is huge. :-/ Civil forfeiture doesn't require anyone to be a criminal; innocent people have their stuff seized all the time. Also, it's incredibly easy to find something you can charge someone with to get them to cooperate. You ever not paid taxes on something you ordered on the internet? That's tax fraud, you're a criminal and have to cooperate. Ever gone more than 15 over the speed limit? That's a crime in many states, you're a criminal and have to cooperate. Even if you know you're innocent of what they want to charge you with, your options are to either cooperate, or spend the next year or two in jail fighting your case while you spend tens or hundreds of thousands on lawyers. Also, whether someone is a criminal or not is rather arbitrary when the state gets involved, because the state defines what a crime is, and thus who the criminals are. E.g. if I tried to compel someone to testify by threatening to steal their car, that makes me a criminal. If the state does it, it's not, because they've written the rules that way.