Asset Forfeiture Laws Immoral?

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The case described in the original post seems to go way beyond the original concept of asset forfeiture, wherein the seized property belongs to the criminal and is the instrumentality of a crime; for example, a drunk driver’s car, or a drug dealer’s apartment used to store his supply.

In this case, as far as I can tell, the airplane did not even belong to the criminal and was not alleged to have been acquired through anyone’s criminal act. Those are very significant points.

Yes you are correct but again, no where have I claimed that there have been no abuses with these laws, also this case described in the original post is a decade old.

Basiclly an abuse of a law does not make the law immoral and/or unconstitutional even when that usage (abuse) is immoral and/or unconstitutional.

This is just an attempt to steer away from the original argument into an area where these guys will find agreement with their opinoins.

 

[benidict]

Items gained through a criminal act would not be considered legal property so when the government seizes them they are not stealing.

But again, it is very telling that you can not come up with any sources and continue to push your opinion as fact based mostly on relativism and emotionalism.

Thanks for the try but it is now time to move on until you provide actual sources to support your opinions.

Really? Are you serious? The 4th Ammendment protects against such seizures. When the government takes from you, before you have had your due process, then that is stealing. Ok. How would you like this. I catch you after the commision of a felony. instead of detaining you, as I am supposed to do, I deny your due process, and since it is a probable capital crime you hypothetically hae commited, I decide to violate your due process by executing you right then and there. Happens in south american countries all the time.

 

[ChadS]

Really? Are you serious? The 4th Ammendment protects against such seizures. When the government takes from you, before you have had your due process, then that is stealing. Ok. How would you like this. I catch you after the commision of a felony. instead of detaining you, as I am supposed to do, I deny your due process, and since it is a probable capital crime you hypothetically hae commited, I decide to violate your due process by executing you right then and there. Happens in south american countries all the time.

I think a more apt description would be ask if it would be fair to seize his monastery in addition to arresting him.

ChadS

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Items gained through a criminal act would not be considered legal property so when the government seizes them they are not stealing.

But again, it is very telling that you can not come up with any sources and continue to push your opinion as fact based mostly on relativism and emotionalism.

Thanks for the try but it is now time to move on until you provide actual sources to support your opinions.

Excuse me, but until due process has been achieved (a.k.a., you have had your day in court) it has not been proven that you are guilty of anything…in fact you are presumed innocent. So yes, seizing and or/destroying said person’s property is STEALING.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

The Courts have upheld those laws, so they are NOT unconstitutional.

And, they are very effective. Criminals SHOULD be required to forfeit their ill-gotten gains.

Just goes to show that people should check out who is paying all that cash for a flight (which is VERY unusual, most people would pay by check or credit card. Cash should have made this airplane owner very suspicious. But, he didn’t care, he just took the cash and flew the guy.

Maybe he learned something in the process.

No, this is neither immoral, not is it against the teachings of the Church.

 

[TedDC]

The Courts have upheld those laws, so they are NOT unconstitutional.

And, they are very effective. Criminals SHOULD be required to forfeit their ill-gotten gains.

Just goes to show that people should check out who is paying all that cash for a flight (which is VERY unusual, most people would pay by check or credit card. Cash should have made this airplane owner very suspicious. But, he didn’t care, he just took the cash and flew the guy.

Maybe he learned something in the process.

No, this is neither immoral, not is it against the teachings of the Church.

In the stated facts, there is no indication that the airline owner was paid in cash, nor anything to suggest that he had a duty to be suspicious of his client.

 

[benidict]

The Courts have upheld those laws, so they are NOT unconstitutional.

And, they are very effective. Criminals SHOULD be required to forfeit their ill-gotten gains.

Just goes to show that people should check out who is paying all that cash for a flight (which is VERY unusual, most people would pay by check or credit card. Cash should have made this airplane owner very suspicious. But, he didn’t care, he just took the cash and flew the guy.

Maybe he learned something in the process.

No, this is neither immoral, not is it against the teachings of the Church.

My dear friend. Have you really thought this through? This scenario could happen to you. what if you have a daughter who has a boyfriend, who is visiting you, on your property. The police have been tracking him, and find him on YOUR property, with a trunk full of coke. Not only would he be arrested, you could be as well, and your property seized without a day in court. You did not even have to have knowledge of his misdeed. Sorry, wrong place wrong time. You are now in a terrible mess, with very little recourse. Good luck getting your property back also.

 

[benidict]

bump

 

[TedDC]

My dear friend. Have you really thought this through? This scenario could happen to you. what if you have a daughter who has a boyfriend, who is visiting you, on your property. The police have been tracking him, and find him on YOUR property, with a trunk full of coke. Not only would he be arrested, you could be as well, and your property seized without a day in court. You did not even have to have knowledge of his misdeed. Sorry, wrong place wrong time. You are now in a terrible mess, with very little recourse. Good luck getting your property back also.

Yes, and there are many similar scenarios where an innocent party could find his property seized under those laws. I have no problem with seizure of the property gained by a criminal as a result of his crimes; in fact I favor a policy which I call “punitive impoverishment” in which money or property is taken from a criminal with the express intent of rendering him destitute. But that, like all punishments, would be applied after conviction.

 

[benidict]

Yes, and there are many similar scenarios where an innocent party could find his property seized under those laws. I have no problem with seizure of the property gained by a criminal as a result of his crimes; in fact I favor a policy which I call “punitive impoverishment” in which money or property is taken from a criminal with the express intent of rendering him destitute. But that, like all punishments, would be applied after conviction.

I completely agree. Also, where the courts are concerned, They have stopped the peoples voice in california, by stating their vote to protect marriage is not valid. This is called Judicial Tryanny. Just because the courts say something is ok, does not make it constitutional or moral. Take abortion for instance.

 

[chevalier]

As for the Supreme Court, one thing is certainly common between the US and Israel of Old: both are ruled by judges.

On a lighter note, while I’m not an American attorney and my training in American law is very limited, I’m having a hunch this could make for a piece of sick litigation fun. If the man still had resources, he could probably sue the government into a pulp for the unwarranted seizure, damage done and the gimmicky settlement, not to mention making a lot of trouble for the responsible officers.

In Poland we have a similar story of a man who was CEO of probably the largest computer hardware vendor here until he got locked up on some strange fraud charges. Eventually, he was freed, turned out it was bogus, he got like 3 national average salaries for taking away months of life, freedom, health and ruining him economically.

In my view, the system should be made to protect people who are merely suspected of something AND their property as well. There should be some legal guarantees, such as protecting a job (reinstatement if hired for suspicion and acquitted afterward), protecting the business (e.g. appointing a receiver or trustee), the family and so on.

Also, defence costs are a problem. Costs are generally a problem. To some extent, lawmakers of various countries address this problem by following the advocatus pauperi rule and allowing the appointment of a free lawyer but this doesn’t always work out so great. The lawyer can be bad and often underpaid, which makes him poorly motivated (though he should know better and still do his job as best he can). The prosecution still has lots more of funding and the competition is uneven. You’ve got to spend more and more to measure up.

I’d also like to see more accountability for trigger-happy authorities, as well as an obligatory course in evidence laws for all officers and then perhaps a mandatory course in formal logic for decision-makers (so that they really know when things add up or not).

Another problem is that criminal laws are easy game in elections and can be used as leverage to gain votes from this or that part of the populace at the expense of the substantive purpose for which they are made.

 

[benidict]

As for the Supreme Court, one thing is certainly common between the US and Israel of Old: both are ruled by judges.

On a lighter note, while I’m not an American attorney and my training in American law is very limited, I’m having a hunch this could make for a piece of sick litigation fun. If the man still had resources, he could probably sue the government into a pulp for the unwarranted seizure, damage done and the gimmicky settlement, not to mention making a lot of trouble for the responsible officers.

In Poland we have a similar story of a man who was CEO of probably the largest computer hardware vendor here until he got locked up on some strange fraud charges. Eventually, he was freed, turned out it was bogus, he got like 3 national average salaries for taking away months of life, freedom, health and ruining him economically.

In my view, the system should be made to protect people who are merely suspected of something AND their property as well. There should be some legal guarantees, such as protecting a job (reinstatement if hired for suspicion and acquitted afterward), protecting the business (e.g. appointing a receiver or trustee), the family and so on.

Also, defence costs are a problem. Costs are generally a problem. To some extent, lawmakers of various countries address this problem by following the advocatus pauperi rule and allowing the appointment of a free lawyer but this doesn’t always work out so great. The lawyer can be bad and often underpaid, which makes him poorly motivated (though he should know better and still do his job as best he can). The prosecution still has lots more of funding and the competition is uneven. You’ve got to spend more and more to measure up.

I’d also like to see more accountability for trigger-happy authorities, as well as an obligatory course in evidence laws for all officers and then perhaps a mandatory course in formal logic for decision-makers (so that they really know when things add up or not).

Another problem is that criminal laws are easy game in elections and can be used as leverage to gain votes from this or that part of the populace at the expense of the substantive purpose for which they are made.

wow! You have a better grasp of this than most Americans I know! Want to immigrate? Id love to have you!