3 ms·
Someone accused of robbing a bank should not be able to use their own money to defend themselves against such an accusation? You have a major problem with your
by diyorgasms 11y ago
Someone accused of robbing a bank should not be able to use their own money to defend themselves against such an accusation?
You have a major problem with your presumption of guilt.
- hinkley 11y agoI suspect there's some sad commentary on the state of humanity that you have bother yourself to say something like this. Whatever happened to "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"? I know that has origins in English Law but the Founding Fathers considered it to be so important it figures heavily in the Bill of Rights.
- harryh 11y agoAssets aren't forfeited without evidence of guilt.
- dpark 11y agoYes, they are, quite frequently. That's the entire point of the article. It's also quite pretty much the definition of civil asset forfeiture. Assets are taken on simple suspicion of criminal activity, and the assets' retention by the state is not predicated on criminal guilt of the owner. In fact it is the assets themselves which are sued by the state (which makes no sense, but is nonetheless true). > Once property has been seized, the burden of proof falls on the defendant to get it back -- even if the cops ultimately never charge them with a crime. "We don’t have to prove that the person is guilty," an Albuquerque DEA agent told the Journal. "It’s that the money is presumed to be guilty."
- harryh 11y agoYes, the DEA has to show evidence that the money is the result of a drug sale or some other illegal activity. They don't have to show that any given person was involved in that sale. I don't really have a problem with that.
- spacemanmatt 11y agoTheir assertions are taken for evidence. It's a system built for abuse.