Politics Protecting our 5th Amendment

[oldmangrouch]

I understand the philosophical argument - here's the pragmatic rejoinder.

People rob banks because they keep money in banks. They sell drugs because it is seen as a get-rich-quick scheme. Most "white collar" crime is nothing but pathological greed. If crime didn't pay, you would have a lot less of it.

Civil forfeiture is not a magic cure all. Like all police activity it needs to be monitored to protect against abuse. It also works. It is no random accident that after Oregon weakened their CF law the number of meth labs in the state rose dramatically. The problem got so bad, they instituted new regulations on the sale of over-the-counter cold meds.

In other words, we went from a system that targeted the bad guys to one that harassed Joe average citizen.

 

[Denny Crane]

So what's the problem with requiring the government sue the person before taking the assets? Or to make asset forfeiture part of the remedy in a lawsuit, or as part of the criminal penalty if indicted and convicted?

If the person moves the assets to hide them, that would be criminal.

Or allowing the police to seize property for 72 hours during arrest and a judge would have to agree it's evidence for the trial.

 

[oldmangrouch]

Asset seizure as part of a criminal court sentence does occur - but in many states it has its own loop-hole that is subject to abuse. In a civil forfeiture, the state targets a specific asset. (eg a bank account with $x amount in it). In a criminal case, the judge can often order "restitution" in any amount he pleases. You made $100K dealing drugs? Tough - your restitution is $1 Million to cover the cost of investigation and prosecution.

If you live in one of those states, the civil forfeiture procedure can actually grant you more legal protection!

As I said at the beginning - it is more complicated than people often think. The alternative would be for the Feds to impose a single standard that all states must follow. I'm guessing that would offend your political sensibilities as well.

 

[Denny Crane]

Asset seizure as part of a criminal court sentence does occur - but in many states it has its own loop-hole that is subject to abuse. In a civil forfeiture, the state targets a specific asset. (eg a bank account with $x amount in it). In a criminal case, the judge can often order "restitution" in any amount he pleases. You made $100K dealing drugs? Tough - your restitution is $1 Million to cover the cost of investigation and prosecution.

If you live in one of those states, the civil forfeiture procedure can actually grant you more legal protection!

As I said at the beginning - it is more complicated than people often think. The alternative would be for the Feds to impose a single standard that all states must follow. I'm guessing that would offend your political sensibilities as well.

Federal laws and rules trump the states, as long as their constitutional. The constitution (mostly) trumps all.

So if it's the feds telling the states what they're doing is unconstitutional, I don't have a problem with it.