Re:Rand Paul introduces bill to reform civil asset forfeiture
by watwut on Sunday July 27, 2014 @09:10AM
(#8092638)
Preponderance of the evidence is balance of probabilities. E.g. if it is 51% likely that you did it, it is assumed you did it. Clear and convincing evidence means that it must be highly and substantially more probable that you are guilty in order to be assumed so. E.g. 51% would not do it.
In any case, forfeiture was done to people who were not even charged with anything, much less convinced of a crime.
Both are legal definitions. Convenient wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof
Re:Rand Paul introduces bill to reform civil asset forfeiture
by cottonseed on Sunday July 27, 2014 @10:00AM
(#8092752)
Thanks for the explanation and the link!
> In any case, forfeiture was done to people who were not even charged with anything, much less convinced of a crime.
It looks like that isn't changing under this reform.
Re:Rand Paul introduces bill to reform civil asset forfeiture
by e40 on Sunday July 27, 2014 @10:30AM
(#8092834)
It looks like that isn't changing under this reform.
Which would seem to be one of the worse problems with current law, no?
Re:Rand Paul introduces bill to reform civil asset forfeiture
by srj on Sunday July 27, 2014 @09:21AM
(#8092664)
You do not need to be charged of a crime to have property taken from you under civil asset forfeiture. It's possible to contest the forfeiture in court but that requires an expensive legal battle in a place you might not live (many of these occur on the highway), against a government with far more time and resources.
The money, at least a large cut of it, goes to the municipality that siezed the property. In some small towns this is abused to fund their city government.
Re:Rand Paul introduces bill to reform civil asset forfeiture
by ipsin on Sunday July 27, 2014 @01:59PM
(#8093422)
It's important to remember that in an asset forfeiture case, the "accused" is not the owner of the item, it's the item itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U....
edit: A number of people point out forfeiture can occur without a conviction or even a crime being charged. This reform doesn't change that. It changes the burden of proof from preponderance of evidence to clear and convincing evidence (and addresses some of the perverse financial incentives). These are both less strict than "beyond a reasonable doubt", which applies in criminal proceedings. (See watwut's link to Burden of Proof below.)
What I'm saying is this reform is weak, and it would be better to treat forfeiture like any other criminal penalty.