3 ms·

As I said, IANAL. Sorry, I'm not following. This stuff breaks my brain. > No criminal charge against the owner is required because criminal punishment isn’t so

As I said, IANAL. Sorry, I'm not following. This stuff breaks my brain. > No criminal charge against the owner is required because criminal punishment isn’t sought... Are you saying these "Robin Hood" style civil forfeitures are simply not legal (constitutional)? Vs some kind of cunning legal hack?

dragonwriter 3y ago
> Are you saying these "Robin Hood" style civil forfeitures are simply not legal (constitutional)? No, I'm saying criminal charges are only required for criminal types of sanctions, and what civil forfeiture does isn't in that scope. That's not to say I think its fine: I think its often bad for policy reasons, and the details of some of the current uses (especially state/local seizures under federal law) have particular constitutional and policy issues.