(January 9, 2018 at 10:24 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Sounds like horseshit to me ... g'bye presumption of innocence.

I believe presumption of innocence is not fundamental even in theory to the mainstream legal thinking outside the English common law tradition. It is not reflected in practice in many circumstances in common law countries such as US. Guantanamo certainly presumes guilt.

(January 9, 2018 at 12:59 am)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(January 9, 2018 at 12:51 am)Chad32 Wrote: Well, on paper it doesn't sound bad to me.

Why not, though?

I personally think it sounds authoritarian (on paper or in practice). What merit do you see in it?

Edit: lol, if you'd care to discuss it that is...

Like the article says, if someone's running around in something a lot more expensive than what they should be able to afford, it's possible they stole it. Of course on the flip side, it can be a way to take away nice things from groups that the authorities think are unworthy, but it should still raise some alarm bells with people trained to prevent burglary.

(January 9, 2018 at 10:24 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Sounds like horseshit to me ... g'bye presumption of innocence.

Ya know... the Netherlands... legalize weed, prostitution, arrest people with expensive clothing. Gotta have some irony in that.

(January 9, 2018 at 10:27 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: It might be cause for suspicion, perhaps further investigation. 

However in the US, I think that the innocent until proven guilty is a good policy, and this seems to be the other way around.

This kind of thing happens in the US too. Its called civil asset forfeiture and it allows police to confiscate property if they believe it was acquired by illegal means. They don't have to prove anything and the owners often have to go to court to prove their innocence in order to get their property back.

(January 9, 2018 at 1:24 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(January 9, 2018 at 10:27 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: It might be cause for suspicion, perhaps further investigation. 

However in the US, I think that the innocent until proven guilty is a good policy, and this seems to be the other way around.

This kind of thing happens in the US too. Its called civil asset forfeiture and it allows police to confiscate property if they believe it was acquired by illegal means. They don't have to prove anything and the owners often have to go to court to prove their innocence in order to get their property back.

I can understand somewhat taking the stuff (say bought from all the money they made illegally).   I don't think I realized they could do it, before any type of guilty verdict?  What do they do if they are not found guilty (or is that a whole separate process)?

(January 9, 2018 at 2:39 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I can understand somewhat taking the stuff (say bought from all the money they made illegally).   I don't think I realized they could do it, before any type of guilty verdict?  What do they do if they are not found guilty (or is that a whole separate process)?

In the US they don't even have to be charged with a crime.  The forfeiture does go through the courts - with in rem jurisdiction (i.e. the property in question as the "defendant").

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_rem_jurisdiction

Quote:The use of this kind of jurisdiction in asset forfeiture cases is controversial because it has been increasingly used in situations where the party in possession is known, which by historical common law standards would make him the presumptive owner, and yet the prosecution and court presumes he is not the owner and proceeds accordingly. This kind of process has been used to seize large sums of cash from persons who are presumed to have obtained the money unlawfully because of the large amount, often in situations where the person could prove he was in lawful possession of it, but was forced to spend more on legal fees to do so than the amount of money forfeited.[2]

emphasis mine.

(January 9, 2018 at 11:19 am)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(January 9, 2018 at 10:24 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Sounds like horseshit to me ... g'bye presumption of innocence.

I believe presumption of innocence is not fundamental even in theory to the mainstream legal thinking outside the English common law tradition.  It is not reflected in practice in many circumstances in common law countries such as US.  Guantanamo certainly presumes guilt.

True enough. That doesn't mean it isn't a value worth holding, though ... and it's one I hold crucial to fair justice, m'self.

---

(January 9, 2018 at 2:39 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(January 9, 2018 at 1:24 pm)Tiberius Wrote: This kind of thing happens in the US too. Its called civil asset forfeiture and it allows police to confiscate property if they believe it was acquired by illegal means. They don't have to prove anything and the owners often have to go to court to prove their innocence in order to get their property back.

I can understand somewhat taking the stuff (say bought from all the money they made illegally).   I don't think I realized they could do it, before any type of guilty verdict?

They can and do do so regularly. I've heard of a couple of cases which were reversed, but many if not most aren't even contested. The I-10 corridor between Houston and Mobile was (in)famous for local agencies beating this into the ground.

 

(January 9, 2018 at 2:39 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: What do they do if they are not found guilty (or is that a whole separate process)?

Nothing, usually, unless a countersuit is launched and carried through successfully -- a very rare occurence.

(January 9, 2018 at 11:42 am)Chad32 Wrote: Like the article says, if someone's running around in something a lot more expensive than what they should be able to afford, it's possible they stole it. Of course on the flip side, it can be a way to take away nice things from groups that the authorities think are unworthy, but it should still raise some alarm bells with people trained to prevent burglary.

Yeah, cause it's not like people ever donate expensive clothes to people... or give them as gifts.  By this logic we should just expand it to everything.  You own a nice TV?  Better have that receipt to prove you didn't steal it, or at least show you're making plenty of money.  How about that ipad you have?  Yeah, gotta have the receipt for that too.

Maybe the kids don't have any money because they ... wait for it ... spent it on the expensive clothes.

(January 10, 2018 at 1:35 am)Cecelia Wrote:

(January 9, 2018 at 11:42 am)Chad32 Wrote: Like the article says, if someone's running around in something a lot more expensive than what they should be able to afford, it's possible they stole it. Of course on the flip side, it can be a way to take away nice things from groups that the authorities think are unworthy, but it should still raise some alarm bells with people trained to prevent burglary.

Yeah, cause it's not like people ever donate expensive clothes to people... or give them as gifts.  By this logic we should just expand it to everything.  You own a nice TV?  Better have that receipt to prove you didn't steal it, or at least show you're making plenty of money.  How about that ipad you have?  Yeah, gotta have the receipt for that too.

I agree it's a system that can be abused, but I also know there's some logic behind the idea. I'm not sure why I have to argue this.