3 ms·

I do not dispute that this is very unfair (and thats putting it mildly).... ... but did the Washington Post bother finding out if this man was involved in crim

by steve19 11y ago

I do not dispute that this is very unfair (and thats putting it mildly).... ... but did the Washington Post bother finding out if this man was involved in criminal activity? It does not make this law any less unfair, but surely it makes a difference in the outrage in this case. People are not upset when cartel members have their planes and jewelry confiscated. Proving your life savings are in fact legally earned should be pretty simple. Print out a bank statement (he said he withdrew it from an out of state bank) and take it to the nearest DEA (or US Marshal?) office. On the other hand, if he could not furnish a bank statement, has a history of drug dealing or other criminal activity I would be no more outraged than when a local drug dealer has his car confiscated. (Although I would still be against the law in principle)

woah 11y ago
They stole it, and they will not give it back. If someone is mugged on your block, is the first thing you do to sit there and wonder whether they are completely free of sin?
daeken 11y ago
> ... but did the Washington Post bother finding out if this man was involved in criminal activity? It does not make this law any less unfair, but surely it makes a difference in the outrage in this case. The Washington Post confirmed that he was never tried for any crime, let alone convicted. The legal system of the US is built on the premise that guilt must be shown, and innocence presumed. They didn't even attempt to show he was guilty -- instead, they just stole his money.
koube 11y ago
I definitely see your point, bad things happening to bad men is not our concern. However, I do believe that the law being unfair is a bigger issue than whether or not the victim was a bad person or not. That is the basis for a fair legal system. In a less philosophical and a more practical sense, if we look the other way when the law is stretched, it will quickly lead to discrimination, and eventually the law will go after the rest. Civil forfeiture has already become a source of profit for police department.
mikeash 11y ago
The idea that we should temper our outrage at government misbehavior based on how much the target seemed to deserve it is an unbelievably dangerous one. We should be just as outraged when the government violates the rights of a total scumbag as we are when they violate the rights of an upstanding citizen. To do anything less is to make a total lie of the idea that we have any rights at all. Imagine if the government censored a movie and the response was, well, before we get all outraged at this blatant violation of freedom of speech, what if the movie was about really bad stuff? Well, there's no point in "freedom of speech" if it only protects the things everybody likes.

by steve19 11y ago

woah 11y ago

They stole it, and they will not give it back. If someone is mugged on your block, is the first thing you do to sit there and wonder whether they are completely free of sin?

daeken 11y ago

> ... but did the Washington Post bother finding out if this man was involved in criminal activity? It does not make this law any less unfair, but surely it makes a difference in the outrage in this case. The Washington Post confirmed that he was never tried for any crime, let alone convicted. The legal system of the US is built on the premise that guilt must be shown, and innocence presumed. They didn't even attempt to show he was guilty -- instead, they just stole his money.

koube 11y ago

I definitely see your point, bad things happening to bad men is not our concern. However, I do believe that the law being unfair is a bigger issue than whether or not the victim was a bad person or not. That is the basis for a fair legal system. In a less philosophical and a more practical sense, if we look the other way when the law is stretched, it will quickly lead to discrimination, and eventually the law will go after the rest. Civil forfeiture has already become a source of profit for police department.

mikeash 11y ago

The idea that we should temper our outrage at government misbehavior based on how much the target seemed to deserve it is an unbelievably dangerous one. We should be just as outraged when the government violates the rights of a total scumbag as we are when they violate the rights of an upstanding citizen. To do anything less is to make a total lie of the idea that we have any rights at all. Imagine if the government censored a movie and the response was, well, before we get all outraged at this blatant violation of freedom of speech, what if the movie was about really bad stuff? Well, there's no point in "freedom of speech" if it only protects the things everybody likes.