I don't really like this idea. Though I understand that seized assets from organized crime have to go somewhere; I imagine they're being sold off to auction. Honestly I'd taken it for granted that assets held by people who were convicted of various crimes were taken and redistributed somehow, but I am a little fuzzy on the details. Should criminals just keep their gains?
Well, I'm all for redistributing the assets of proven criminals tobenefit those they harmed, but I think there's an obligation to prove they came by their assets criminally first. The legal principle of "guilty unless proven innocent", as practiced in anything drug-related in the US already, is a leap back in time to the Middle Ages in terms of legal process. Civil forfeiture allows your property to be seized on the grounds of what amounts to an allegation, which in the US can even be anonymous, and puts the onus upon you to prove you DIDN'T commit any crimes. Do you have any idea how hard it can be to rigorously prove a negative? That's a hell of a nasty camel to let into the tent.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
Civil forfeiture allows your property to be seized on the grounds of what amounts to an allegation, which in the US can even be anonymous, and puts the onus upon you to prove you DIDN'T commit any crimes. Do you have any idea how hard it can be to rigorously prove a negative? That's a hell of a nasty camel to let into the tent.