neophyte
Contributor
Gary D.:Would you feel better if, as an example, a drug dealer that has derived everything they own from drug dealing got to use those funds for his defense? Or an Extortionist who’s assets are all from illegal activity being able to use them?
Right there, in my opinion, is the problem.
If these funds are being seized and are therefore unavailable to be used for their DEFENSE, they've been seized PRIOR to a conviction.
When our government (at any level) is able to seize a person's assets BEFORE they've been convicted of any crime, that's a major problem.
When this siezure makes this INNOCENT (since they've yet to be found guilty and are to be considered innocent up until that point) person more likely to be found guilty by not allowing them to put together a defense as good as they would've otherwise been able, the problem is compounded.
Gary D.:I will agree that they can keep money they can prove that was earned from legitimate means. Other than that, seize it.
Gary D.
I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that, at least in most cases, proving the money "was earned from legitimate means" involves instigating a civil suit against the jurisdiction which has siezed your assets.
This involves a higher standard of proof than the "reasonable doubt" involved in defending yourself against a criminal charge. You are not entitled to a public defender either, yet are still without assets.
Travesty of justice is not too strong a phrase.
So there're my couple of cents anyway...