3 ms·

There's an interesting ethical dilemma and it must apply to lots of cases. It seems obvious that nobody should benefit from the results of their crime.* But if

by gumby 4y ago

There's an interesting ethical dilemma and it must apply to lots of cases. It seems obvious that nobody should benefit from the results of their crime.* But if the accused is innocent until convicted, shouldn't it be OK to spend the ill gotten gains on their defense? After all, if they win the gains were legitimate, and by induction they were legit until conviction. How is this circle squared in practice? * this principle is more easily stated than enforced. Some places don't allow convicted criminals to earn any money from writing a book about their crimes (this rule seems reasonable) but where does it end? Apparently Bernie Madoff got respect in prison for the magnitude of his theft. That was a benefit of sorts...

njovin 4y ago
This is basically what civil forfeiture is designed for (although it's being severely abused). The cops arrest you and seize all assets that are suspected of being used in or obtained by the suspected crime. This has been heavily abused in California and elsewhere [1][2] to seize assets from marijuana dispensaries or "suspected drug criminals". Cops seize product and money, never file charges, and then let the business owners fight for months/years to get their property back (often times with the seized product having long since expired), despite no charges having been filed. IMO it's an egregious violation of the 4th amendment and it's maddening that more isn't being done to stop the practice. [1] https://reason.com/2022/02/04/a-california-sheriff-remains-free-to-rob-armored-cars-carrying-money-from-state-licensed-marijuana-businesses/ https://reason.com/2022/02/04/a-california-sheriff-remains-f... [2] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > This is basically what civil forfeiture is designed for (although it’s being severely abused). No, this is basically what criminal forfeiture, and freezing assets potentially subject to it, is designed for. Civil forfeiture was designed for trade protectionism in the British Empire, but then it became an end-run around criminal process in the US, particularly around Prohibition.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by gumby 4y ago

njovin 4y ago

This is basically what civil forfeiture is designed for (although it's being severely abused). The cops arrest you and seize all assets that are suspected of being used in or obtained by the suspected crime. This has been heavily abused in California and elsewhere [1][2] to seize assets from marijuana dispensaries or "suspected drug criminals". Cops seize product and money, never file charges, and then let the business owners fight for months/years to get their property back (often times with the seized product having long since expired), despite no charges having been filed. IMO it's an egregious violation of the 4th amendment and it's maddening that more isn't being done to stop the practice. [1] https://reason.com/2022/02/04/a-california-sheriff-remains-free-to-rob-armored-cars-carrying-money-from-state-licensed-marijuana-businesses/ https://reason.com/2022/02/04/a-california-sheriff-remains-f... [2] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken

dragonwriter 4y ago
> This is basically what civil forfeiture is designed for (although it’s being severely abused). No, this is basically what criminal forfeiture, and freezing assets potentially subject to it, is designed for. Civil forfeiture was designed for trade protectionism in the British Empire, but then it became an end-run around criminal process in the US, particularly around Prohibition.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]