Civil Forfeiture: How prosecutors seize the assets of the innocent (2013)

Re:Civil Forfeiture: How prosecutors seize the assets of the... by clamprecht on Sunday September 07, 2014 @11:36AM (#8281432)

One difference between China and the US is that the US Constitution has a 4th amendment that says the government won't do unreasonable searches and seizures. I'm not sure if China has an equivalent. (maybe it does, can anyone comment?). I know you're not defending the US, but I wanted to point out this possible distinction.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Civil Forfeiture: How prosecutors seize the assets of the... by nknighthb on Sunday September 07, 2014 @12:08PM (#8281551)

I read a translation of (some recent version of) the PRC constitution once. It didn't strike me as materially different from any modern democracy's, and included private property protections.

Reading it can be pretty surreal, but it's really just a reminder that laws of any sort are worthless unless there is a societal respect for the rule of law.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Civil Forfeiture: How prosecutors seize the assets of the... by kposehn on Sunday September 07, 2014 @01:30PM (#8281780)

The main difference between China and the US in this instance is that the US is governed by the rule of (some very screwed up) law. The PRC is governed by a party, and the rule of law is not actually the final word.

[ Parent | on HN ]