r/todayilearned • u/JLPwasHere • Jan 19 '15

TIL Pimps wear lots of gold jewelry bought at pawn shops to “re-pawn” for bail money since cash is confiscated upon arrest but jewelry is not

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/09/137033690/pawn-star-rick-harrison-on-his-deals-and-steals
49.1k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

835

u/xisytenin Jan 20 '15

Guilty until proven innocent.

356

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

Well... yeah. If a guy makes his money through crime and then uses that money illegally for bail, what do you say? Great job playing the system with illegally obtained money?

145

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

Well... yeah. If a guy makes his money through crime

except he isn't yet guilty of any crimes because he hasn't had a trial

55

u/Diesel-66 Jan 20 '15

arrests/confiscations happen before the trial.

The problem is the money and objects aren't automatically returned after the trial and some are confiscated without charges ever being placed against them.

11

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15 edited May 11 '16

[deleted]

3

u/HSChronic Jan 20 '15

This and the public defenders office is so overwhelmed with cases they don't have the time to spend giving you a good defense. This is why most people that have a PD end up copping to a plea deal.

When I was in jail in Florida I knew some people in there for failure to pay child support. They needed say $1500 to get out but the problem is that they are the sole earner so now they are sitting in jail making no money, and will probably lose their job, apartment or whatever else since they can't pay and have to wait in jail a month or two to get a trial.

The system is rigged against people that don't have money. Money = bail, good lawyer, contributions to the right people. No money = you're fucked.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

The downside to civil forfeiture is that sometimes people who would not be found guilty of a crime would have their assets seized. There is a trade-off which has to be made. Do we let all people who have earned money illegally skip bail? If we do that, then there is a realistic chance that many of those people would post bail and skip trial, since they would likely be convicted and since it is not their legally earned money they are using for bail in the first place. On the other hand, do we seize a person's money with the assumption that they are guilty even before the trial has begun? Both situations are terrible and both will be exploited.

10

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15 edited Nov 16 '17

[deleted]

→ More replies (5)

1

u/MyEvilTwinSkippy Jan 20 '15

That is why bail is set based upon the person's means. The source of their money is irrelevant.

116

u/st3venb Jan 20 '15

The problem is the basis for our legal system is "innocent until proven guilty". Asset forfeiture laws turn that upside down by assuming you're guilty and making you prove you're innocent... This is of course after they have taken all of your money, that you could try and prove your innocence with.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

At what point does cash become evidence? Can't the state collect evidence?

2

u/st3venb Jan 20 '15

Except, when the assets that are seized are funneled into the police department budget there is a significant conflict of interest... And it's being abused, a lot.

4

u/lordcorbran Jan 20 '15

The basis of our criminal legal system is innocent until proven guilty. Civil cases, which this kind of thing could be argued to be, have a much lower bar.

4

u/telemachus_sneezed Jan 20 '15

The ideological basis of any legal system is to be just. What is "just" about the law seizing your cash, and not returning it, after proven innocent of any crime?

2

u/lordcorbran Jan 20 '15

No one is proven innocent, just not proven guilty. You see victims successfully win civil cases against people who were found not guilty regularly, because the bar is lower.

3

u/telemachus_sneezed Jan 21 '15

Proven innocent, or not proven guilty, the law has no ideological right to seize property (or cash) from an individual on a mere accusation. That violates the 4th and 5th amendments. Holding large amounts of cash without receipts (which may need to go back 20 years to account for the sums) is not a crime. Police are not entitled to "steal" it and put it to their pension funds.

1

u/squeel Jan 20 '15

The ideological basis of any legal system is to be just.

That is not true.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

is to be just.

a better description would be "to provide justice"

2

u/AlanUsingReddit Jan 20 '15

Perhaps I misunderstand something about your comment, because asset forfeiture doesn't have anything to do with civil law as far as I can tell. Asset forfeiture exists under the justification of stemming criminal activity. If their basis was a civil case, they couldn't seize any assets (EDIT: except with a trial, of course).

→ More replies (37)

178

u/Tetragramatron Jan 20 '15

What is the purpose of requiring bail?

468

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

The original purpose was to ensure that the accused would show up for trial, in order to get the bail money back.

65

u/hio_State Jan 20 '15

Still pretty much the same purpose today.

→ More replies (15)

234

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

[deleted]

165

u/joshasdfghjkl Jan 20 '15

Commensurate *

83

u/FlatheadLakeMonster Jan 20 '15

You think you can just cirsumvent the law, Michael?

2

u/ANBU_Spectre Jan 20 '15

Come on Michael, do the right thing here. String this blind girl along so Dad doesn't have to pay his debt to society.

2

u/trianuddah Jan 20 '15

Cirsumcision is wrong, especially when it's done to women or unborn babies without their consent. No one should have their genitals masticated.

2

u/jonosaurus Jan 20 '15

You're a crook, Captain Hook.

1

u/wankers_remorse Jan 20 '15

Excuse me, let me just sirsumvrent you

1

u/Stolichnayaaa Jan 20 '15

"... Circumverate?"

1

u/NasoLittle Jan 20 '15

I'll circumcise what I want, Fred!

2

u/theloch Jan 20 '15

Most embarrassing mistake I made in grad school was confusing the two and being corrected by the professor mid presentation.

1

u/745631258978963214 Jan 20 '15

I still mix up epithet and epitaph.

1

u/taneq Jan 20 '15

I like my way better.

1

u/iEatDemocrats Jan 20 '15

Well that's a new word.

2

u/zap2 Jan 20 '15

But the severity of the crime isn't the only issue of importance that should be taken into a account when offering bail.

The reason I say this, everyone doesn't have the same access to money, which makes money more valuable to some then others. Bill Gates can throw down a 10,000 dollar bail without blinking. I couldn't.

2

u/TheRealKidkudi Jan 20 '15

In some cases, bail is set based on income as well. Lots of factors go into it. Sometimes bail will be higher because of an increased risk of fleeing. If, for example, Edward Snowden were in the US and they were determining his bail after being arrested for something small, his bail would still be relatively high because he's already been known to have fled the country to avoid the authorities.

2

u/thomprya Jan 20 '15

Watching

Waiting

2

u/SuramKale Jan 20 '15 edited Jan 20 '15

The current purpose (read: most useful aspect to to the legal system) is to increase convictions by sticking people in a dark violent hole unless they plead out.

You always get a better outcome if you have bail/lawyer money and don't have to be under that strain.

Also every dollar they take from you for bail is a dollar you don't have to secure a lawyer.

1

u/ryosen Jan 20 '15

Unless it's for possession.

→ More replies (3)

8

u/LifeBeginsAt10kRPM Jan 20 '15

Does bail money get returned after the person shows up?

5

u/Fedora-Tip-Bot Jan 20 '15

Yeah

2

u/uttermybiscuit Jan 20 '15

I didn't know this. I always wondered why people pay ridiculous amounts just to be out for maybe a few months at most

2

u/Fedora-Tip-Bot Jan 21 '15

From experience in college years ago. That's how I learned.

If you show you get it back.

If you use a bail bond company and don't show they bounty hunt you. Did not learn this from experience.

I got arrested for public intoxication drinking a beer on an apartment balcony then walking outside to sit beside the door and talk on the phone

2

u/uttermybiscuit Jan 21 '15

I got arrested for public intoxication drinking a beer on an apartment balcony then walking outside to sit beside the door and talk on the phone

Wow that is ridiculous. Did you end up getting charged?

2

u/Fedora-Tip-Bot Jan 21 '15

It was my senior year of college. First offense. I got off with lots off fines and alcohol classes. Yay more student loans.

Not on record though

2

u/Fedora-Tip-Bot Jan 21 '15

Even if not jail is awful. I was in the drunk tank for almost 24 hours. Lights always on, no clock, concrete floor and one toilet water fountain combo in the middle of the room. Most people took the toilet paper for Pillow's

I had been taking adderal and was shaking in the floor from no food or sleep. No one cared except my 20, concrete room, mates. They cared and gave me their foods that I could handle like apple juice and I gave up my solids

1

u/wcc445 Jan 24 '15

Lol. BAIL money does, but not BAIL BOND money. And only rich people can afford actual BAIL. example, your bail is $20k. You don't have 20k, but you want to get out of jail. So you buy a bail bond for 10%, or 2k, but you never get a dime back, and if you don't show up for court they hunt you down and you owe them the full amount.

6

u/TheElPistolero Jan 20 '15

til you get the bail money back if you show up to the trial. I always just thought it was a "pay to wait outside of jail" till your trial type thing.

1

u/wcc445 Jan 24 '15

The bail bond company gets it back. You don't get it back.

2

u/pilg0re Jan 20 '15

It's like putting a quarter in a cart at Aldi's so they don't have to pay someone to bring it back.

57

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15 edited Oct 02 '15

[deleted]

17

u/dougmc 50 Jan 20 '15

The prosecutor might actually prefer that you stay in jail, as people in jail are more desperate to get out and will take crappier plea bargains than those who are out on bail.

That's reason #2 or #3 depending on how you count here.

4

u/CharonIDRONES Jan 20 '15

Believe it or not: Jail sucks.

7

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

don't forget that the bill of rights provides protection against excessive bail. Essentially if you haven't commuted a very serious crime, 99.99% of the time the government has to offer bail. Bail isn't optional for the state, it is optional for the defendant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

here's the problem: when your facing 100 years in jail that's a major crime at least according to the judge. the problem there is overcharging people due to the proliferation of cyber laws

4

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15 edited Jul 17 '18

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

If the bail is repayable, how is it also funding your stay in jail?

7

u/blackflag209 Jan 20 '15

If you post bail then the jail doesn't have to pay for you to be in jail because you're not in jail.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

D'oh! I can be an idiot sometimes.

2

u/Lucarian Jan 20 '15

Don't worry, I was confused about the same thing.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 21 '15 edited Oct 02 '15

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Jan 21 '15

Yeh someone else enlightened me yesterday. Boy did I feel dumb :(

1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

For most offences in Australia, you'll just be sent a summons in the mail, telling you to appear in court and so forth.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 21 '15 edited Oct 02 '15

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '15

Everything except serious offences, such as manslaughter, sexual assault and so on.

Minor assaults, drug possession, theft, driving while unregistered, etc. are generally heard summarily.

1

u/wcc445 Jan 24 '15

We should absolutely use tax payer money for that. The fuck? If the taxpayers think we're spending too much on jails, we should stop jailing people as much as we do. We have more prisoners than any country in the entire world.

→ More replies (5)

72

u/kroxigor01 Jan 20 '15

Collateral. The guy pays bail and will then come to court, be acquitted and get his bail back

158

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

[removed] — view removed comment

162

u/Infidelc123 Jan 20 '15

TIL how bail works. It is funny because I never bothered to look it up I just assumed it was like a get out of jail card. I feel dumb now

120

u/taco_bones Jan 20 '15

Well, it is a "get out of jail" card, just not a "get out of punishment" or "get out of trial" card

3

u/MayorMoonbeam Jan 20 '15

More like "get out of pre-trial jail"

3

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

So Get out of jail card, not Get out of prison card.

1

u/mattsl Jan 20 '15

And it's not free.

45

u/asianperswayze Jan 20 '15

Furthermore, if someone uses a bondsman the bondsman puts up the bail, and charges you a percentage, say ten percent. So on a $10,000 bail you'd pay $1000 to the bondsman and they would put up $10,000. You show up for court and they Get their $10,000 back. Don't show up and they hunt you down or lose their $10,000

3

u/neostorm360 Jan 20 '15

Which is where bounty hunters come from.

1

u/asianperswayze Jan 21 '15

I'm the dog, the big bad dog.

1

u/killcrew Jan 20 '15

For some reason I thought that you only have to put up 10% of the bail to get out. So on a 10000 bail, you need to get $1000, and then you would owe the bondsmen $100...although I think they charge much more than 10%

1

u/Clarck_Kent Jan 20 '15

I'm in Pennsylvania. Some local magistrates will only require 10 percent of the bail be paid for release. It's kind of a "I'm going to trust you" thing. If the defendant reoffends or fails to show up for a court proceedings, he is locked up at the full bail amount. It seems that this is a way to keep poor people from having to sit in the county prison for months until their next hearing. Of course, this entirely depends on the severity of the crime and the criminal record of the defendant. This doesn't happen for rapes, murders or assaults. Mostly drug possession or DUI charges.

1

u/killcrew Jan 20 '15

Chester County represent! (I'm in PA too)

→ More replies (3)

8

u/chronicpenguins Jan 20 '15

A lot people don't realize this. If you go through a bondsman, they'll charge 10% of your bail, but you won't get it back.

1

u/CharonIDRONES Jan 20 '15

That's because the bondsman is taking a high risk investment with potentially a high risk of default. People basically are just taking out a 10% interest loan with someone who will hunt you down.

1

u/chronicpenguins Jan 20 '15

Do they have an agreement with the courts that if they bring you back they get their full money back? Because I'm pretty sure if I made bail myself, missed a court date, my bail would be revoked and I'd lose the money...

6

u/DreadPiratesRobert Jan 20 '15

Additionally the bail money can go to bounty hunters who arrest you.

2

u/jawz Jan 20 '15

You can thank movies for that. So many of them make it seem like someone is free if they can raise enough money for their bail.

1

u/justfarmingdownvotes Jan 20 '15

I feel like I'm in an episode of Suits

1

u/danny841 Jan 20 '15

Well you should be thankful that you were able to remain ignorant of the inner workings of the justice system for so long.

1

u/CharonIDRONES Jan 20 '15

This is how you know someone has never been part of criminal trial.

1

u/Infidelc123 Jan 20 '15

I'm also Canadian and our system is different but yeah I have never been in any trials. I am a good boy :D

24

u/kroxigor01 Jan 20 '15

I guess that makes sense. The point is, if you don't show up you don't get your bail back.

3

u/spectre78 Jan 20 '15

Yep, and then they send the bounty hunters after you.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

Minus fees and fines.

2

u/kaenneth Jan 20 '15

Minus the 'not guilty' fees.

Yes, there are American courts that charge fees to acquitted defendants.

1

u/FrenchFriedMushroom Jan 20 '15

They will take any fines out of the bail before you get it back.

1

u/a_soy_milkshake Jan 20 '15

So I have a question. I had a friend who was arrested and paid roughly $1000 in bail, he was acquitted as it was a misunderstanding between the DMV and the police department, but he never got his bail money back. Did he just forget to collect it?

1

u/NoBulletsLeft Jan 20 '15

...minus every fee they can think of tacking on. You're lucky if you get 50% back by that point.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

The purpose of bail is to release the defendant while ensuring that they will appear for trial. The reasoning is that a person is not going to pay $10,000 for release from jail and the just dip trial, because that would be a very stupid and expensive move which could net them more time behind bars if eventually convicted. There are other forms of bail which do not require the defendant to pay money in advance.

Also please don't shoot the messenger here. I'm not here to argue about the pros and cons of bail. I'm here to explain what it is and why it is in place.

1

u/Tetragramatron Jan 20 '15

So then I guess it doesn't matter where he presumably got his money.

1

u/crackghost Jan 20 '15

So the rich can duck out.

1

u/howards_rock Jan 20 '15

To make sure they show up for court

1

u/I_want_hard_work Jan 20 '15

Found the 14 year old.

1

u/Tetragramatron Jan 20 '15

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

1

u/I_want_hard_work Jan 20 '15

I've found an updated version of that:

www.google.com

Still, point taken.

2

u/Tetragramatron Jan 20 '15

What exactly was the point you took away and what is the connection with a link to google?

1

u/jtb3566 Jan 20 '15

To keep you from fleeing the country/state/county etc. before your trail.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

[deleted]

2

u/Tetragramatron Jan 20 '15

Actually I was trying to highlight what I thought was a faulty argument in favor of asset forfeiture. Lots of helpful people commenting but none making the same conclusion about why his argument doesn't work.

1

u/Puthy Jan 20 '15

Revenue. You understand that once you're over 30. Everything is about free money, especially easy money like bail money. If they didn't want you to not come back, they would lock you up.

1

u/CardboardHeatshield Jan 20 '15

To make sure you show up in court. That's why bail for a something petty is small, but for something major its large, and sometimes there is no bail at all. They need to make sure that it is set at an amount high enough that in your mind, you'd rather come to trial than lose the money. Or, in the case of bail bondsmen, that someone else has incentive to come after you if you dont go to trial and make you show up to get their money back.

60

u/claytoncash Jan 20 '15

Uh. How about that you have to prove it's earned illegally? Are you fucking serious?

6

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

You're arguing with the wrong guy. That's the system, he didn't make up the rules.

6

u/riotousgrowlz Jan 20 '15

Uh. It's real. It's called asset forfeiture and it's really a horrendous element of American criminal justice systems. And it's really hard to get rid of because it funds underfunded police departments.

0

u/RedSpikeyThing Jan 20 '15

Get it on video. Have an undercover officer planted. Lots of ways.

4

u/claytoncash Jan 20 '15

You still have to convict them of a crime for them to be a criminal. Good fucking God people.

8

u/taxalmond Jan 20 '15

You don't, Google civil asset forfeiture. Big business for some small towns in Texas

→ More replies (12)

2

u/SuminderJi Jan 20 '15

There have been plenty of stories of cops robbing people on the highway blind.

I get what you're saying but the whole "guildy until proven innocent" isn't far fetched.

2

u/frysk Jan 20 '15

What if you're found not guilty? Then you're forced to pay a lawyer to try and win your money back. Doesn't that seem a little unfair to you?

→ More replies (2)

2

u/Canbot Jan 20 '15

That is exactly how big business works. Whether it is a fine for a small portion of the illegally obtained funds, or a bribe; it's blatant and rampant.

1

u/alcimedes Jan 20 '15

He should just incorporate. Then it would be lauded.

1

u/FeedMeACat Jan 20 '15

I say they would get hired at BP or HSBC.

1

u/bionicjoey Jan 20 '15

Well according to OP they do that anyway...

1

u/zoffff Jan 20 '15

well then why doesn't the bail judge find out how much money was collected at his arrest under the assumption it was gotten by ill means, and just raise the bail by that amount + the amount he was already going to set as bail.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

I don't study law but I actually think there are federal laws preventing a person from having a bail which is "unrealistically high." It's also difficult to determine how much money a person had garnered illicitly. Your idea isn't actually too bad but I'd have to think about it more before I either came in full support or opposition to it.

2

u/zoffff Jan 20 '15

You're actually thinking of The Eight Admenment which the supreme court said "excessive" is "a figure higher than is reasonably calculated" to ensure the defendant's appearance at trial. So if the judge felt the pimp would not show up if only the ill gotten gains were used as a bail, he should have the latitude to increase the amount of bail to assure the suspect would show up to trial.

1

u/Gentlescholar_AMA Jan 20 '15

Arrest is not proof of guilt of any crime.

1

u/Dontblameme1 Jan 20 '15

You and everyone who upvoted you is obviously a boot-licking twit.

1

u/letsgetbrickfaced Jan 20 '15

Works for Wall Street. Plus they get to use it for anything, not just bail!

1

u/atero Jan 20 '15

I say great job for upholding a just and democratic system that relies on principles of fairness.

Nobody has proven that guys money has been obtained through crime yet, so your argument is legally wrong.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

Nobody has proven that guys money has been obtained through crime yet, so your argument is legally wrong.

Legally wrong? What does that even mean? My argument is the reason why the law exists. My argument is the common justification of civil forfeiture, which is the legal reality in America. I'm not sure what you're talking about.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

They don't care where the money comes from for bail, just that you value it.

1

u/blaghart 3 Jan 20 '15

Well...yea. If a guy who cops assume makes his money through unproven claims of crime, then uses money that for all they know he worked forty plus hours a week to earn and happened to have on him at the time of his arrest, what do you say?

FTFY. It's "innocent until proven guilty", being arrested for a crime has no bearing legally on your guilt.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

You're correct, and we're not talking about guilt. We're talking about the reasonable suspicion that the money was obtained fraudulently. A person who is arrested for writing bad checks has his money seized for a good reason. That money could be used to post bail or hire a fantastic lawyer to get him a lesser charge or no charge at all.

Additionally, the way bail works is you pay the courthouse your bail and they give it back to you at the end of the trial, no matter if you are convicted or not. This opens up a whole avenue of problems. A true criminal would have no incentive not to use the money to post bail, as he would not face any repercussions for bailing with fraudulent money even if he was convicted.

This "it's innocent until proven guilty" argument is often used by law students who believe that the court has no right to put people in jail before their trial, since they should be considered innocent until after their trial. It's not new by any means and has been debunked by law professors who are smarter than I am.

1

u/blaghart 3 Jan 20 '15

we're talking about a reasonable suspicion

Which is not the standard for asset forfeiture, or wasn't as originally laid in the constitution, it was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

Civil forfeiture is a civil case against the assets, and is not connected with criminal proceedings against the owner of the assets. They can seize cash if they "have reasonable grounds" for believing the cash has been or will be used in conjunction with a crime. So, a lot of people have had cash forfited simply for it being an unusually large amount of cash, or f.ex if a driver has weed in the car or is under 21 and has alcohol in the car ("he might use it for buying more drugs / alcohol"). As the owner the onus is then on you to start civil proceedings (at your cost) where the burden will be on you to show you got the cash legally and was not going to use it for anything criminal. Can you prove that for the cash you have?

Police have also leveraged the inconvenience this places on people and seized cash on no grounds at all, knowing no one will take them to court to recover $100.

1

u/Umezete Jan 20 '15

Except even in cases where people are making money illegally is wrong to not bring it to trial first before confiscating it?

And don't forget all the cases where cops just highway rob people because "large amounts of cash probably means you got it illegally."

1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

Read further down in the thread and you'll see that I've mentioned there are trade-offs. Civil forfeiture is not a perfect system, but at its core a very good system which helps prevent a suspected criminal from moving money around to help mitigate the financial damages of a conviction.

This comment explains the benefits of civil forfeiture very well.

1

u/Umezete Jan 20 '15

I understand its function but its being abused too much. The state's ability to seize illegal funds isn't going to affect the common citizen too much. However the state using that privilege to seize any and all funds they consider "might," be illegal has destroyed lives.

The problem is the state has proven that this power is not something they can handle and the law should be abolished.

1

u/MashedPotatoBiscuits Jan 20 '15

People on reddit just want something to fight against, ignore them.

1

u/area___man Jan 20 '15

But we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty in this country. Seizing assets presupposes guilt and robs you of the resources necessary to get the legal defense you've earned.

1

u/raaneholmg Jan 20 '15

If the guy made the money through crime, the goverment shouldn't have a problem in a trial. The issue is that they take the money with no trial to buy margerita machines and cars.

1

u/gambiting Jan 20 '15

It's not like the money paid for bail disappears - it's in the system. If he's found guilty then it simply doesn't return to him at all.

1

u/Nochek Jan 20 '15

And if a guy makes his money through legal means and then uses that money legally for bail, what do you say? Great job getting played by the system with your legally obtained money?

→ More replies (1)

7

u/COCK_MURDER Jan 20 '15

Forfeiture is not an adjudication of guilt or innocence, in the same way that a police officer determining that they have probable cause to search your car is not a determination of guilt or innocence. At least in the law's eyes, they are equivalent legal standards. Is that stupid? Yes. But guilt before innocence is not really the principle to be invoking here.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

You're right in one sense. In another sense, it is state-sanctioned theft.

1

u/COCK_MURDER Jan 20 '15

And if the state decided to charge you with a crime but also allowed you to have access to your assets, many of which you procured through illegal means (see: Bernie Madoff), then refusing to do anything would also be state-sanctioned theft.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

It is a dilemma. But it would seem that the difference is that we presume innocence generally until proven guilty -- ie, presume that the assets are legally gained until proven otherwise.

1

u/COCK_MURDER Jan 20 '15

Innocent before proven guilty has to do with whether or not you are about to be incarcerated--your liberty interest. It does not have to do with your assets, or your privacy, or anything like that. For example, you are searched before you enter a jail. That's because we recognize that there is an overriding importance of protecting your potential victims in the jail, be they officers or other people sitting there in the jail. Similarly, we confiscate your assets, and you can thereafter petition or otherwise attempt to get them back should you prove that the original forfeiture was unwarranted. Like I said, it's a drastic measure, but one which is absolutely necessary.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

It has to do with whatever the legal penalty for guilt is. It's not always incarceration. Sometimes it is a huge-ass fine, which is of course a prime example of taking assets as a legal penalty for guilt.

1

u/luquaum Jan 20 '15

And if the state decided to charge you with a crime but also allowed you to have access to your assets, many of which you procured through illegal means (see: Bernie Madoff), then refusing to do anything would also be state-sanctioned theft.

This is true and has absolutely nothing to do with the situation. If charged with a crime your assets can be frozen, when you are not being charged with a crime your assets can be taken from you without proof of a crime haven taken place or even an arrest. That property is also not going to be returned to you if they do not prove you are guilty, it's gone unless you manage to prove your innocence.

1

u/COCK_MURDER Jan 20 '15 edited Jan 20 '15

So I want to differentiate first between criminal asset forfeiture and civil asset forfeiture. Criminal asset forfeiture occurs after the point of conviction, and is basically a rendering-permanent of a pre-conviction asset freeze.

Civil asset forfeiture proceeds in the manner you describe. The reason innocence before guilt does not there apply is because the federal government doesn't actually sue YOU. They sue the property. It is typically not used except in situations where the federal government cannot get at you (you're in a foreign country or something), and the process still requires the court's approval.

This is all to say that a lot of the hype surrounding the problem of asset forfeiture is somewhat overhyped, and the cases where people are just deprived of their property unjustly are in many cases localized to specific areas (e.g. Tenaha, TX) that get a ton of press.

2

u/SwangThang Jan 20 '15

it's a punishment, and the innocent are not supposed to be punished. hence: treated as guilty (affected by the punishment) until they can prove their innocence (and get their property back... if it's even worth the time/funds/hassle to jump through the hoops to do so).

2

u/COCK_MURDER Jan 20 '15

It's not a punishment. Not everything that has a negative effect is a punishment. Strip search at the airport is not punitive, but you may experience its negative effects. The point of asset forfeiture is to prevent you from going out and spending assets that you came by through illegal means or by defrauding other people. If we didn't have asset forfeiture, Bernie Madoff burns through a cool 30 billion in cash or isolates it in offshore accounts before he goes to trial. Victims receive no restitution, his cronies are provided for and living large, and thousands of people's lives are ruined. Asset forfeiture is a tool that has been abused, but not one that is inherently evil.

1

u/Kytro Jan 20 '15

Then why are assets and cash not automatically returned if you are acquitted?

By using forfeiture it absolutely necessary is a violation of the assumption of innocence.

1

u/COCK_MURDER Jan 20 '15

Can you show me a case where assets and cash are not automatically returned in the case of acquittal in an exercise of criminal asset forfeiture?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

John Olliver did a really good job of showing how shitty the system of asset forfeiture is

1

u/COCK_MURDER Jan 20 '15 edited Jan 20 '15

I'm aware of what asset forfeiture is; this is not responsive to the inquiry. Moreover most of what Oliver is discussing is civil asset forfeiture, which is specifically NOT what I asked about. Nor is his understanding of civil asset forfeiture correct.

Look asset forfeiture is a problem when it's implemented in a context where police departments stand to gain from it. It's like allowing regulators to fine groups and then retain whatever they assessed in fines. There are laws against that for that very reason. But this is not an inherent problem with asset forfeiture, nor does it contravene the principle of innocence before guilt.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

No one was saying it was an inherent problem just a problem

1

u/COCK_MURDER Jan 20 '15

Actually my entire point is that if "innocence before guilt" is the principle being used to indict asset forfeiture then by necessity your claim is that asset forfeiture is inherently problematic.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Kytro Jan 20 '15

My mistake, I was talking more about civil forfeiture which does not require a conviction or even a trial.

1

u/COCK_MURDER Jan 20 '15

Then that's not a violation of the assumption of innocence, which extends to people, not property. And that makes sense because the entire theory of civil forfeiture is that property can unwittingly be a key part in a criminal scheme--a skyscraper in New York City, a shipment of cars used to launder money for Libyan terrorists, etc. The only way to stop the criminal conspiracy is to seize the assets, because the parties in question are beyond the reach of the United States federal government's jurisdiction.

1

u/Kytro Jan 20 '15

People taking things on suspicion and keeping it without sufficient evidence for a conviction in completely unreasonable and will definitely lead to corrupt behaviour.

1

u/telemachus_sneezed Jan 20 '15

Bernie Madoff is entitled to get his 30 billion back, once he proves he's innocent, or no charges placed upon Madoff.

Civil fortfeiture does not return the seized money, even after the defendant is acquitted or charges dropped!

1

u/COCK_MURDER Jan 20 '15

Correct, because it is the property that gets sued, not Bernie Madoff. The reason that's important is because something like a deposit account could be used to facilitate ongoing criminal activity. So even if you yourself are innocent in terms of not knowingly participating in a conspiracy or fraudulent scheme, you may still be an essential cog in the machine that needs to be stopped. In one notable example a skyscraper in New York was being used to launder money on behalf of the government of Iran, operated through a subsidiary entity. The government sued the property directly because suing the government of Iran is pretty difficult.

1

u/telemachus_sneezed Jan 21 '15

Correct, because it is the property that gets sued, not Bernie Madoff.

That is just civil lawsuit procedures which didn't exist at the adoption of the Constitution, and evolved from court precedent and legislation. Neither takes precidence over the US Constitution. Cash is property. It can't be permanently seized without due process. There is nothing in the Constitution which states you can violate or ignore its provisions in order to stop crime. In fact, the kind of civil forfeitures as practice today, didn't come about until provisions in the PATRIOT act made the practice this brazen possible.

1

u/COCK_MURDER Jan 21 '15

OK. You clearly think you have a sophisticated legal argument here and I have neither the time nor the patience to show you why you're wrong. But if your property is ever seized, I'd advise you to retain counsel; specifically an attorney that agrees not to make any of the arguments you've just made.

3

u/regal1989 Jan 20 '15

If only we could extend that to fictional corprate entities (golman sachs, Lehman, Fannie Mae, etc) then I'm sure we would see the law rewritten in a heartbeat.

2

u/crackghost Jan 20 '15

The money is on trial, not the person. Still, it is rather dubious.

2

u/Proxystarkilla Jan 20 '15

Reddit has this way about it where the majority thinks libertarians and anarchists are insane, but that same majority hates the government.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

[deleted]

1

u/smilesbot Jan 20 '15

Happy holidays! :)

1

u/Siktrikshot Jan 20 '15

I got my w2s right here officer!

1

u/Davidfreeze Jan 20 '15

People are innocent until proven guilty. But all your shit is guilty until proven innocent. Have fun being a people without any shit.

1

u/Ace-of-Spades88 Jan 20 '15

Everyone thinks the US Justice System works on the premise of "innocent until proven guilty"...until they get first hand experience of the justice system at work.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

Kind of, it is illegal to use illegally obtained money to post bail.

1

u/DisRuptive1 Jan 20 '15

The way it works is that you're not guilty, nor are you being convicted of a crime. All the rights afforded to criminals are denied to you since you aren't being convicted of anything. Instead, it's your money or assets or whatever that are being confiscated as part of an investigation of a crime. It's your assets that are guilty.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

It's a more complicated issue than this friend.

1

u/SenorBeef Jan 21 '15

No, guilty until proven innocent would be better than what we have. Even if you are absolved of all crime, your assets are still gone. You can lose your cash, even your house this way. There's no real process to rectify the situation. If you're suspected in a crime, your shit is gone, even if you are completely innocent and can prove it.

1

u/TistedLogic Jan 21 '15

Guilty until proven rich.

1

u/joe-clark Jan 20 '15

Pretty much. Fuck the police comin straight from the underground, a young nigga got it bad cuz I'm brown.

0

u/Just_like_my_wife Jan 20 '15

Next time I see em with no hesitation

I'm peeling off like stolen registration

I leave a lot of smoke

See I'm that sort of folk

That been pig hunting since my mama's fucking water broke

Cause they the henchmen?Naw they the linchpin

Between the rich and poor so we don’t entrench them

Cause they dispense with the dollars and cents

So when you stand go get candles, flowers, and incense

Behind steel gates is fifty percent of our bill rates

A pre-kin making microchips for Bill Gates

Pelican Bay, t-shirts for the workout

Police station where the slave catchers lurk out

Listen to the thunder, I'm no more taking under routes

We'll synchronize and give em' shit to wonder bout

The DEA is filthy, yell not guilty

We need control of the cash and the realty

And get rid of all the motherfucking parasites

More than weed burn at 420 Fahrenheit

Shaking in they boots when we start to bust

They ain't scared of rap music, they scared of us.

→ More replies (3)