Replies

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.

"Taking property is punishment."

Not really. What if that property were acquired with money obtained by an illegal activity? What if the property were stolen? What if the property is used to help commit a crime?

Sorry. But the property would be "guilty" in those instances. I don't consider asset forfeiture in those cases to be punitive.