Comment by insane_dreamer
3 days ago
> a forfeiture system that didn't work as it should
And I'm arguing that the forfeiture system itself contravenes the principles of justice on which the US is founded.
Have you lived in countries where the police can just take away your stuff without recourse because they are a law unto themselves? I have. Trust me, it's no fun.
The history of civil forfeiture is maritime law, which has special conditions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...
If you are an innocent person carrying the suspected proceeds of crime, and can prove it's not from a crime, you should not be impacted.
Recourse is built into the civil forfeiture process, afaict. This article is, as I read it, a case of a man using the channels of recourse successfully.
Your portrayal of the police as an arbitrary force that seizes things without recourse is, I think, incorrect.
> can prove it's not from a crime
the problem is that this shifts the burden of proof of innocence on you, instead of the burden of proof of guilt on the authorities. They can say "we have reason to believe you committed a crime to obtain this" and there's not much you can do except to prove them wrong. That goes against "unless you can prove I have a committed a crime, I have committed no crime". That's what I take issue with.
> Your portrayal of the police as an arbitrary force that seizes things without recourse is, I think, incorrect.
You're probably right. There is recourse and procedures, so not quite Wild West level lawlessness. But the system is very much rigged against you if for some reason the police believe (rightly or wrongly) that the assets were obtained illegally or used in illegal activity. And it very much facilitates police corruption since their burden of proof is so low -- who is to say that the police is wrong?
1) yes the burden of proof is shifted, but if the recourse is relatively simple administrative appeal (showing a source of income, a history of savings, a chain of withdrawals, to explain why you have $300,000 in small bills in your trunk) vs hiring a defender and a trial, that's seems like a reasonable trade off.
The history of civil forfeiture in maritime law suggests it arose when you captured a pirate of smuggling vessel. They are loaded with stolen or illegal merchandise. The owner of the vessel is in France. You seize it and send a letter to him saying "hey, if this is yours, come get it and tell us why you have it legally. Otherwise it's ours."
2. Lots of things facilitate corruption. This might be one of them, but even if we eliminated it, corruption isn't likely to go away (it is not the unique driver of corruption). Moreover, it may not be even a particularly significant driver of corruption in general (there may be specific cases where it is) - so removing it wouldn't impact all the forces that generate corruption. So removing it would have little or no impact.
That said, if the perception is that it is a corrupting force, it would be useful to make changes to make it seem less so: have all proceeds go to FEMA, for example, instead of back to the departments. Or specify how the recovered moneys can be spent - on buildings but not salaries - like jail improvements- so specific people cannot uniquely benefit.
And if corruption is the problem generally, addressing it directly is likely to be more effective than eliminating civil forfeiture and letting corruption go unchecked otherwise.