Leaving aside the soundness of the War on Drugs, there are at least five excellent reasons why asset forfeiture must go:
- It's based on the notion that one can accuse an inanimate object of a crime.
- It short-circuits the judicial process and denies the means of defense to many criminal defendants.
- In many cases, it violates the "excessive fines" stricture of the Bill Of Rights, which was supposed to preclude the use of trivial offenses to seize the property of others.
- It often imposes entirely unjustifiable costs on third parties, such as Carol Thomas in the case mentioned above.
- It practically begs for police and justice authorities to corrupt themselves -- to look for ways to maximize the forfeitures, rather than to enforce the law.
I'm sure I could come up with more, but it's still early and I need more coffee.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason:
http://palaceofreason.com
Right on as usual Fran.
Your forgot this one.
Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
”Leaving aside the soundness of the War on Drugs, there are at least five excellent reasons why asset forfeiture must go:”Unfortunately one is inextricably linked to the other. You try to get rid of forfeiture and the government screams that they can’t control drugs, and our children will be at risk, and the collapse of society will be immanent etc, etc. The same arguments that the tempest movement used, which was not valid then, and is not valid now.