I would have no problem with forfeiture if it only applied:
1) To the property of individuals or groups actually found guilty of a crime, and
2) To property that was actually instrumental in the commission of the crime (for example, a vehicle used for smuggling, but not one where the owner is merely caught for possession), or purchased from the proceeds of crime.
Your current asset forfeiture laws are clearly not compatible with a country that claims to believe in freedom, property rights, and the due process of law.
If the legislature specified that the penalty for a crime was to forfeit all your assets to the jurisdiction in which your crime was committed, courts would probably strike it down.
“I would have no problem with forfeiture if it only applied:
1) To the property of individuals or groups actually found guilty of a crime, and”
You don’t even HAVE to be found guilty of a crime. All the time, they hit up people and never even bother to charge them. There is no day in court where the government has to prove its case against you to a jury of your peers.
I would have no problem with forfeiture if it only applied:
1) To the property of individuals or groups actually found guilty of a crime, and
2) To property that was actually instrumental in the commission of the crime (for example, a vehicle used for smuggling, but not one where the owner is merely caught for possession), or purchased from the proceeds of crime.
Your current asset forfeiture laws are clearly not compatible with a country that claims to believe in freedom, property rights, and the due process of law.
_________________
I have a huge amount of problem with forfeiture. If someone does a crime, charge them, convict them and make them serve their time and or pay the fine. But taking stuff from people like this, it smacks of an out of control government.
When I see cops traveling in late model cars I realize that someone had their stuff taken by the government at gunpoint. If it can happen to them it can happen to anyone.