Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Ialnyien t1_j7q6ojx wrote

Speaking from direct experience.

My family member got off from this with no repercussions outside of the asset forfeiture.

That member was guilty as all heck, and deserved to spend time for dealing.

Instead they were given a clear second chance with no history.

There is no best answer here, as many of these individuals are guilty. In my opinion they should take the win they got and move on.

If some were wrongly convicted/ assets stolen, by all means return their stuff, but if they can prove being the 50% likelihood it was criminal activity, it should not be returned.

−1

ItsMeTK t1_j7q87v2 wrote

In the eyes of the law then those assets are not criminal. No innocent person should have his property stolen, period. That’s basic constitutional rights. Even if actually guilty, if courts fail to conclude that he is presumed innocent.

13

Ialnyien t1_j7q9emt wrote

In the law you’re not proven innocent, you’re proven not guilty. There is a difference and that difference matters.

−2

ItsMeTK t1_j7q9tbl wrote

It does. But I was mid sentence not wanting to screw the grammar up trying to word it better. Point is we are presumptively innocent unless proven otherwise.

4

Ialnyien t1_j7qdte3 wrote

In this case I think I’m ok with the presumption of a 50% likelihood that assets are a result of criminal activity.

This is what the courts and lawyers are for, if they can prove under that threshold where those assets came from, they should be released. The issue I think for many is that they can’t prove that and not indict themselves.

−5

majoroutage t1_j7s1qpo wrote

Actually you're de facto innocent, and must be proven guilty. Which is something that seems to be lost on a lot of people defending civil forfeiture.

The phrase "not guilty" is a technical one because it's only referring to guilt of what you've being accused of, not in a general sense.

1

mp246 t1_j7qfday wrote

>Instead they were given a clear second chance with no history.

Just a reminder, the state did that and the blame falls squarely on the state.

7

Ialnyien t1_j7qgust wrote

No doubt and I’m thankful for that, my family member turned it around.

However, should they be entitled to keep the gains from their illicit activities?

3

mp246 t1_j7qk80w wrote

> should they be entitled to keep the gains from their illicit activities?

Your family member, morally speaking, should get their money back. Asset forfeiture should be illegal.

But those who are convicted of a crime (cough legally cough) should have assets seized.

5

Ialnyien t1_j7qvfb0 wrote

We’re going to have to agree to disagree.

I think an argument can be made that it is case specific. In the case of the drug lab issue, I would find it very challenging to return assets to those that are at least 51% likely to have earned it illicitly.

Out of curiosity, do you keep track of where your assets come from? I believe that if these individuals can prove where the assets arrived from, they’d be released if it was legitimately earned.

I’ll withhold my outrage until I see proof that assets have been proven to be earned legitimately and still not returned.

−1

majoroutage t1_j7rwcck wrote

>Out of curiosity, do you keep track of where your assets come from? I believe that if these individuals can prove where the assets arrived from, they’d be released if it was legitimately earned.

The burden should always be on the state to prove a crime was committed, and that the money were earned through its commission, not the other way around. You know, like, by holding a trial and presenting evidence that proves their guilt of a crime, and that that money is connected to it.

3

maralagosinkhole t1_j7uxb8u wrote

Without a criminal or civil conviction they should absolutely be entitled to keep their gains from an allegedly illicit activity

1

peteysweetusername t1_j7ufnen wrote

You should research “motel caswell” in Tewksbury. It closed years ago and is now a retail strip but the government tried to take the property through civil forfeiture. There were 14 drug related arrests at the property during a time where he rented 200,000 rooms. I used to live up there and there was more drug activity at a McDonald’s down the street but the government didn’t go after that corporate property.

The owner ended up having to front $100,000 in legal fees before a non profit ended up taking the case. The judge ended up ruling in caswells favor after years of stress and money spent.

This is the problem with civil forfeiture because you need to prove your innocence against the government which has unlimited resources compared to a private citizen. The government just has to make an accusation.

2