Comment by esbranson
1 day ago
It's a holdover from Europe, which means most countries in the world have a form of it. Mexico, that socialist, gun-control utopia, is probably the best example. If another country besides the US ever gets something like PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) from the 1980s, they would have a clue.
Ignorance is bliss, but the US is probably still better.
Are you trying to say that most countries have something similar to civil asset forfeiture?
If so, that's absolutely wrong.
Yes that's my claim, as defined in Mexican law since that's more like most countries' legal systems.
I don't know so my claim is weak, my Wikipedia articles on non-US legal systems is extremely slow going, and I have not written articles on this particular topic outside the US. :( The real basis of my claim is that most of the world would be expected to have judicial procedures for seizing assets more akin to our CAF. What the US considers reduced rights, like no jury trial, is just how things are elsewhere. (Ain't no one with a right to a jury trial anywhere in the world ever gonna choose a bench trial, it's that much of a difference.)
The most prominent feature of the US asset forfeiture isn't that it's ruled by bench trial.
3 replies →