Why do you think it’s done without due process?mynameisstephen.com/archives/40
What do you all think about the government taking private property? Drug money is dirty, but shouldn’t taking that money without due process make that money ecen more dirty?
Because right now there are laws on the books that give law enforcement the right to take private property that was suspected to be used in the commission of a crime. No guilt has to be proved. This includes cash, cars and real estate and the profits from these seizures go back into the police departments budget and in some cases officers are given bonuses for tge amount of money they bring in.Why do you think it’s done without due process?
I. The Universal Destination and the Private Ownership of Goods
2402 In the beginning God entrusted the earth and its resources to the common stewardship of mankind to take care of them, master them by labor, and enjoy their fruits. The goods of creation are destined for the whole human race. However, the earth is divided up among men to assure the security of their lives, endangered by poverty and threatened by violence. The appropriation of property is legitimate for guaranteeing the freedom and dignity of persons and for helping each of them to meet his basic needs and the needs of those in his charge. It should allow for a natural solidarity to develop between men.
2403 The right to private property, acquired or received in a just way, does not do away with the original gift of the earth to the whole of mankind. The universal destination of goods remains primordial, even if the promotion of the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise.
2404 “In his use of things man should regard the external goods he legitimately owns not merely as exclusive to himself but common to others also, in the sense that they can benefit others as well as himself.” The ownership of any property makes its holder a steward of Providence, with the task of making it fruitful and communicating its benefits to others, first of all his family.
2405 Goods of production—material or immaterial—such as land, factories, practical or artistic skills, oblige their possessors to employ them in ways that will benefit the greatest number. Those who hold goods for use and consumption should use them with moderation, reserving the better part for guests, for the sick and the poor.
My understanding of this passage is that private property rights are granted by society, not by God. This does not specifically address your question about seizure of property in connection with illegal drug operations.2406 Political authority has the right and duty to regulate the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership for the sake of the common good.
Yes, and people can be detained for being suspected of being a participant in the crime and remain in detainment until the person is found to be non-guilty. That’s what jail is; the place where people that are suspected to have done something illegal go. This can be especially devastating to those that were already in a fragile financial state.Because right now there are laws on the books that give law enforcement the right to take private property that was suspected to be used in the commission of a crime. No guilt has to be proved.
I was discussing this with a retired cop the other day. In my opinion, the way our justice system is set up currently is more like ‘guilty until proven innocent’ instead of the way it is supposed to be, INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. If it were truly done this way, why are people suspected of crimes arrested and locked up right then and there? why not just give them a court date and once the court determines their innocence or guilt, then is when they would either go free or be placed in jail?Yes, and people can be detained for being suspected of being a participant in the crime and remain in detainment until the person is found to be non-guilty. That’s what jail is; the place where people that are suspected to have done something illegal go. This can be especially devastating to those that were already in a fragile financial state.
Not saying that I approve of it, but it does seem to be consistent with other laws. It’s part of due process.
I agree. And it seem that the accused are frequently presented with options and outcomes such that pleading guilty even if one is not guilty is the path of lower risks.I was discussing this with a retired cop the other day. In my opinion, the way our justice system is set up currently is more like ‘guilty until proven innocent’ instead of the way it is supposed to be, INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.
It is said to prevent the potentially guilty from fleeing. This is also where economic status comes into play. If you’ve got plenty of money you can make the bale or put something up for collateral and go on about your business until the court date. If not it becomes more challenging. There’s also a bad middle ground where you can’t quite afford legal fees yet you make too much to be awarded a public attorney.If it were truly done this way, why are people suspected of crimes arrested and locked up right then and there? why not just give them a court date and once the court determines their innocence or guilt, then is when they would either go free or be placed in jail?