[robertpaulsen]

"Punishing crimes under civil law is wrong."

Fine. Guy robs a bank, they've got it on video, he confesses, his lawyer gets him off because some rookie cop forgets to read him his Miranda rights, and he gets to keep the money -- IN YOUR OPINION, BY YOUR STANDARDS.

[publiusF27]

Fine. Guy robs a bank, they've got it on video, he confesses, his lawyer gets him off because some rookie cop forgets to read him his Miranda rights, and he gets to keep the money -- IN YOUR OPINION, BY YOUR STANDARDS.

Do they get to throw him in jail? Why not? Because punishment requires a conviction.

It seems to me that the important thing in that case would be to get the thug off the streets. We're willing to give up that important goal for one more important: due process. Is grabbing the money so much more important than protecting society from the thug, so that we must circumvent due process in order to achieve it?

Taking property is punishment. It's punishment for the person, not the property, and this fiction that property can be guilty and that property is being punished is what I just can't swallow. By taking that money, you're talking about punishing a crime without a conviction. That's wrong.

[publiusF27]

By the way, I don't mind working with far-fetched examples that are one sided and completely made up by you. Just so ya know. ;)

[publiusF27]

Fine. Guy robs a bank, they've got it on video, he confesses, his lawyer gets him off because some rookie cop forgets to read him his Miranda rights, and he gets to keep the money -- IN YOUR OPINION, BY YOUR STANDARDS.

Of course, I don't see why the bank couldn't go after their property in the civil courts, but that doesn't have much to do with this discussion of the government using civil asset forfeiture to punish crimes. That would be using the civil courts to settle a debt.