lspencer534
02-20-2019, 2:08pm
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the 8th Amendment protection against excessive fines applies to state governments' use of civil forfeiture cases.
Moving forward, in every forfeiture case, state governments will have to examine whether the property they seek to forfeit is proportionate to the gravity of the alleged offense.
In the past States have used Civil Forfeiture laws as a "cash cow" for raking in millions of dollars each year by seizing property from even alleged law breakers under the theory that the property is "guilty" of a crime. No criminal law burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) is required, only the civil law burden of proof (the property probably did it, or a 51% standard). How property can form intent to do something is beyond me.
It's a shame that the Court didn't outlaw civil forfeiture entirely; I have no problem with criminal forfeiture laws because at least someone has to be convicted of a crime before property is forfeited. The civil forfeiture laws are just disgraceful: Each year suspects have their property taken away from them whether they're guilty or not. Now before you start defending civil forfeiture, please do your research to see just how badly and unfairly these laws have been used.
For those who want to read the opinion:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1091_5536.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0iUQkRkvBC1hBaJsPMVq0xTRT64REvsogteZ515wVFjakysnxkOxXSjWs
Moving forward, in every forfeiture case, state governments will have to examine whether the property they seek to forfeit is proportionate to the gravity of the alleged offense.
In the past States have used Civil Forfeiture laws as a "cash cow" for raking in millions of dollars each year by seizing property from even alleged law breakers under the theory that the property is "guilty" of a crime. No criminal law burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) is required, only the civil law burden of proof (the property probably did it, or a 51% standard). How property can form intent to do something is beyond me.
It's a shame that the Court didn't outlaw civil forfeiture entirely; I have no problem with criminal forfeiture laws because at least someone has to be convicted of a crime before property is forfeited. The civil forfeiture laws are just disgraceful: Each year suspects have their property taken away from them whether they're guilty or not. Now before you start defending civil forfeiture, please do your research to see just how badly and unfairly these laws have been used.
For those who want to read the opinion:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1091_5536.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0iUQkRkvBC1hBaJsPMVq0xTRT64REvsogteZ515wVFjakysnxkOxXSjWs