And calling asset forfeiture "theft" is quite an extreme interpretation when it's mostly legitimate seizures from criminal enterprises (especially the drug trade).
Were it not theft, the property would only be confiscated at the end of legal proceedings, IF it turned out it was related to the crime in question, IF the person was convicted. If those conditions did not hold, the assets should be returned.
In actuality, no crime is required for the property to be confiscated. It can be as simple as carrying a "substantial" amount of money in your person during a road trip, and getting pulled over. Where substantial is subjective. Let's say 1k.
Then your 1000 dollars get prosecuted, in a case titled "United States VS 1000 dollars in 10 dollar bills" and your money has to defend itself. I am not joking.
This mechanism was created – supposedly – to empty the coffers of suspected drug dealers in cases police couldn't actually prove their guilt. It was designed to be used on people that haven't been convicted.
That's not limited to money. It could be a house. It doesn't matter.
All it requires is a 'preponderance of evidence' that the property is related to a crime, which is a low bar. And even if it turns out that the charges are valid, it's still not ok. Because it's related to a property, not a person, you get cases like this:
Hard disagree on principle. We have two types of court - criminal for locking people up, and civil for dealing with money. For locking people up, we require beyond a reasonable doubt. Better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted and all that. For taking somebody's money, we require it to more likely than not (preponderance of evidence) be the correct result. You call this a "low bar" but it's the same bar for a dispute between individuals. We say - it's only money - we should choose the result we believe to be the most correct, not err on the side of protecting the innocent even if it means letting many more guilty people go free. Why should the state be barred from using both courts?
The parents in that news story knew that kid was selling drugs. They smelled it; they saw the money and the clothes and the car; they got helped out on the bills. 9 times out of 10, they are guilty as hell. But it's not 10 times out of 10, so we only take the house the drugs were sold out of, not lock them up.
The different burdens specified in civil vs. criminal proceedings do make sense. No argument here.
It's a stretch to then convert criminal penalties into civil ones via the forfeiture process. Read this passage and tell me if this sounds like anything resembling due process:
> A month-and-a-half later police came back—this time to seize their house, forcing the Sourvelises and their children out on the street that day. Authorities came with the electric company in tow to turn off the power and even began locking the doors with screws, the Sourvelises say. Authorities won't comment on the exact circumstances because of pending litigation regarding the case.
> Police and prosecutors came armed with a lawsuit against the house itself.
So a few things. One, there was no civil court judgement authorizing this. The police decided on their own to take the house. Two, the value of the judgement is literally "how ever much this house is worth." Three, the government sued the house itself. That doesn't even make sense. A house is an inanimate object.
People should be sued, not stuff.
If the government believes they have a legitimate civil complaint, they're welcome to file it in court. The defendants and the government can then argue their cases, and a judge will use the appropriate legal standards to render a decision.
In these cases, the "judgement" is enforced first, and the targets (now without financial resources) must show beyond a preponderance of evidence that they're innocent.
A man breaks into my house and steals my television. A few days later, the police find someone sort of matching the description I give with a few hundred dollars cash in his wallet. He has an alibi, though not very solid proof, and a few details don't line up. The jury doesn't convict him. Am I entitled to the money out of his wallet on a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard? It's only money.
Yes. You can sue somebody for stealing from you in civil xourt even if they are found not guilty (or more commonly, not proesecuted) for theft in criminal court and win. It happens all the time.
Wait, I don't want the bother of bringing a lawsuit. Can I just take the money now? If the alleged thief is innocent, they can sue me for the money to be returned.
Also, I didn't just take the cash out of his pocket, I also took his car, as I suspect he used it to drive to my house to commit the crime.
It's only "legitimate" because there's a law saying they can do it. It's the removal of property without due process. I'm not on team "taxation is theft," but if this isn't theft, private property doesn't exist.
(I'd be totally okay with seizing property from convicted criminal enterprises with due process. Excusing this because it happens to mostly affect people who turn out to have been criminals seems about as defensible in my mind as excusing vigilantes who happen to be mostly accurate.)
At most, “asset forfeiture” should be “asset frozen, for the duration of a civil trial against the owner”:
- Anything movable (automobiles, jewelry, etc) can be seized by police and entered as evidence, but reasonable accommodations must be made (eg: if taking the defendant’s luxury car, a working car must be provided in its stead, so the defendant can still go to work, attend court, etc). If the defendant is found not guilty, the items must be returned without delay and without cost to the defendant, and the police are to be held responsible for any damage or wear during the period of the trial.
- For immovable objects (real estate), the court may block any sale or transfer of ownership of the property. The court should evaluate the condition of the property and its contents at the start of legal proceedings, and the defendant would be responsible for any damage or loss (within their control) that occurs after that date. If the defendant loses, the police may take ownership of the home.
- Cash must be placed into an escrow account. If the defendant is found not guilty, the funds must be released back to the defendant without delay, and the police should be held responsible for any money missing from the account.
