3 ms·

> "You're oversimplifying the rationale. The cops have to prove that the property is the fruit of a crime." The meaning of "prove" in this case is the far more

by Crito 13y ago

> "You're oversimplifying the rationale. The cops have to prove that the property is the fruit of a crime." The meaning of "prove" in this case is the far more permissive "preponderance of the evidence" standard. But of course you already know that. You are lying by admission.

rayiner 13y ago
Preponderance of the evidence is the usual evidentiary standard in civil and property suits.
- ericd 13y ago
  Fine, but having most/all of your net worth seized by the state is an extremely damaging sentence, and the bar should be higher.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Say I sue you for the tort of conversion (use of property inconsistent with someone else's property rights). Even if that property is most of your net worth, I still just have to prove my case by a preponderance of the evidence. I think civil forfeiture is a bad idea because it is ripe for abuse. But its underpinnings are not "legal sophistry" nor are they unconstitutional. I stress the distinction because its useful to understand that not every bad idea is unjustifiable or unconstitutional.
    - ericd 13y ago
      I think that the state attacking a citizen should have a higher bar, not necessarily that all civil suits should (though I do think that as the penalties get steeper as a percentage of someone's net worth, the bar for proving wrongdoing should rise, or the judge should scale the damage award by the level of certainty provided by the evidence). Agreed that many bad ideas have some plausible justifications.
      - rayiner 13y ago
        we aren't talking about damages awards or punishment. We're talking about suits to contest the ownership of property. if I claim in a civil suit that you obtain your house by fraud from me what should be my standard of proof?
        ericd 13y ago
        Ah, sorry, reading comprehension fail on this part: "use of property inconsistent with someone else's property rights". In that case, preponderance seems reasonable.

by Crito 13y ago

rayiner 13y ago

Preponderance of the evidence is the usual evidentiary standard in civil and property suits.

ericd 13y ago
Fine, but having most/all of your net worth seized by the state is an extremely damaging sentence, and the bar should be higher.
- rayiner 13y ago
  Say I sue you for the tort of conversion (use of property inconsistent with someone else's property rights). Even if that property is most of your net worth, I still just have to prove my case by a preponderance of the evidence. I think civil forfeiture is a bad idea because it is ripe for abuse. But its underpinnings are not "legal sophistry" nor are they unconstitutional. I stress the distinction because its useful to understand that not every bad idea is unjustifiable or unconstitutional.
  - ericd 13y ago
    I think that the state attacking a citizen should have a higher bar, not necessarily that all civil suits should (though I do think that as the penalties get steeper as a percentage of someone's net worth, the bar for proving wrongdoing should rise, or the judge should scale the damage award by the level of certainty provided by the evidence). Agreed that many bad ideas have some plausible justifications.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      we aren't talking about damages awards or punishment. We're talking about suits to contest the ownership of property. if I claim in a civil suit that you obtain your house by fraud from me what should be my standard of proof?
      - ericd 13y ago
        Ah, sorry, reading comprehension fail on this part: "use of property inconsistent with someone else's property rights". In that case, preponderance seems reasonable.