So, the DEA seizes a boat you own part of, doesn't notify you, doesn't prove it was used as alleged, auctions it off very cheap, and when you win the case is ordered to reimburse you 1% of its value.
Civil forfeiture, as used in drug cases such as this, is an open invitation and strong incentive for theft under color of authority. The Supreme Court has ruled that it doesn't violate the Constitution, despite the words that conclude the Fifth Amendment:
[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.Despite having only taken a philosophy of law course and no actual law courses, I know how to read, and I see the injustice anyway.
See, I'll defend the rich when they're wronged, too.
2 comments:
People who are found not guilty of crime should be punished equally within the guidelines of a predetermined penalty.
Forfeiture creates disturbing imbalances when attaching punishment to crime. Suspect criminals who have assets are treated very differently to suspect criminals who have nothing. Forfeiture targets assets not criminals and it does not prevent crime.
When Prophet was found not guilty of drug dealing then did the forfeiture of his home (http://www.simonprophet.com.) send out a clear message to drug gangsters?
The police statistics in South Africa indicate that the civil forfeiture of his home actually promoted the particular drug crime of which he was accused by a staggering 7 500% increase within 4 years.
Hmm. I think there's an extra 'not' in this knot. For my part, I'm not sure that mandatory minimums are the answer. They've been pretty awful in the U.S. Even with them, it's the prosecutor's charge that sets the range, so I don't think you have a workable approach to remediating civil forfeiture's injustices.
Post a Comment