ItsMeTK t1_j7q87v2 wrote on February 8, 2023 at 5:15 PM

Reply to comment by Ialnyien in Exonerees in Mass. state drug lab scandal want their seized property and money back by ak47workaccnt

In the eyes of the law then those assets are not criminal. No innocent person should have his property stolen, period. That’s basic constitutional rights. Even if actually guilty, if courts fail to conclude that he is presumed innocent.

Ialnyien t1_j7q9emt wrote on February 8, 2023 at 5:22 PM

In the law you’re not proven innocent, you’re proven not guilty. There is a difference and that difference matters.

ItsMeTK t1_j7q9tbl wrote on February 8, 2023 at 5:25 PM

It does. But I was mid sentence not wanting to screw the grammar up trying to word it better. Point is we are presumptively innocent unless proven otherwise.

Ialnyien t1_j7qdte3 wrote on February 8, 2023 at 5:50 PM

In this case I think I’m ok with the presumption of a 50% likelihood that assets are a result of criminal activity.

This is what the courts and lawyers are for, if they can prove under that threshold where those assets came from, they should be released. The issue I think for many is that they can’t prove that and not indict themselves.

majoroutage t1_j7s1qpo wrote on February 9, 2023 at 12:15 AM

Actually you're de facto innocent, and must be proven guilty. Which is something that seems to be lost on a lot of people defending civil forfeiture.

The phrase "not guilty" is a technical one because it's only referring to guilt of what you've being accused of, not in a general sense.