Submitted by ak47workaccnt t3_10wugmu in massachusetts
Comments
3720-To-One t1_j7pfsu2 wrote
It’s utterly insane in a country where innocent until proven guilty, that civil asset forfeiture is still a thing.
The-Shattering-Light t1_j7pzr24 wrote
“Innocent until proven guilty” really doesn’t exist in the US and hasn’t for a long time.
“Guilty unless proven wealthy” is closer
TreeEleben t1_j7pqh89 wrote
America is now "guilty until proven innocent". Has been for quite a while.
Mission_Albatross916 t1_j7q0bva wrote
Guilty until proven innocent, but even then you don’t get your money and belongings back
Mission_Albatross916 t1_j7pagv5 wrote
It’s utterly insane, and I’m sure most people don’t even know about it.
BostonUniStudent t1_j7ppjy7 wrote
What's even more insane is that these people were convicted on faked scientific evidence. And the state still doesn't want to give their money back.
The tricky thing is, I get it, some of them may have been guilty. But corners were cut on the evidence.
Mission_Albatross916 t1_j7q0kh2 wrote
Absolutely. And the coverup went higher up the food chain. AND people are essentially forced j to plea deals, regardless of guilt, so they system is rigged even without false or possibly contaminated results.
BostonUniStudent t1_j7q10d7 wrote
The only fair way to do it is retrials without the tainted evidence. And it looks like the state decided not to retry a lot of the cases. Okay ... Well, those people should be considered "Not Guilty" now.
Mission_Albatross916 t1_j7q1993 wrote
I think that’s what happened? For all non violent convictions which were affected by certain years at the two labs with the two corrupt workers
BostonUniStudent t1_j7q2975 wrote
It's a little wonky. The men can be treated as innocent and the evidence be treated as associated with a criminal activity still. Civil asset forfeiture has a separate standard of proof and even a separate trial.
So weirdly, the money can be found guilty. Or more accurately "more probable than not that it was associated with criminal activity." Which I'm told can be represented by a greater than 50% chance. Whereas guilt in the criminal context is closer to 99% (some lawyers put a closer to 85%, it just depends on your definition of reasonable doubt).
Mission_Albatross916 t1_j7q2fcm wrote
Oh right! I forgot that part about the assets being the guilty ones. So insane.
the_falconator t1_j7rawnf wrote
It's like OJ winning the criminal trial and still losing the civil case, different standards of proof.
BostonUniStudent t1_j7rc0x9 wrote
It's kind of like that inasmuch as it's civil and not criminal. And it's been awhile since I've read up on that case. But I think he was found civilly liable for a wrongful death.
These civil asset forfeiture cases require no such finding of individual guilt or innocence (responsible or not responsible). This is trial against the evidence itself.
It might be like State of New York v. Yacht.
sydiko t1_j7qra58 wrote
You should watch the video of a cop taking a man's life savings under civil forfeiture. It took him 8 months to get his money back.
Mission_Albatross916 t1_j7qxh5f wrote
Well, that made me furious and nauseated. How fucking disgusting.
At least this guy got his money back but I’m sure that’s super rare.
sydiko t1_j7r9ii2 wrote
Its crazy isn't it? Reminds me be cautious around law enforcement all the time.
Mission_Albatross916 t1_j7ra0dw wrote
No doubt. And he got pulled over because he was NOT speeding. That just happened to me a couple months ago. I was going 30 in a 35 on rural MA roads at night in the rain. In the end I didn’t get a ticket but the cop tried telling me that I had had a ticket in MA in the past - totally not true. I told him so and he just backed down and said “ok have a nice night.” But the whole time I was fuming and it was all I could do to keep my mouth shut and be “polite.”
phoenixofsevenhills t1_j7u2q6c wrote
Wow .. so messed up! He kept his composure too, I mean I would have definitely snapped and been arrested! That's a TON of cash to drive with in your rental trunk!!!
crake t1_j7pcz7h wrote
I haven’t read the SJCs opinion, so take it with a grain of salt, but I believe it has to do with the evidentiary burden that needs to be met for civil asset seizure vs the evidentiary burden to be met for a criminal conviction.
Generally speaking, in the civil context, the plaintiff (ie, the state in these cases) need only show by clear and convincing evidence that the plaintiff is entitled to the requested relief from the defendant (ie, asset forfeiture).
By contrast, to take away someone’s liberty, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt (BARD) that the person committed the crime that they are charged with. BARD is a very high threshold to meet, much higher than clear and convincing evidence, as used in the civil context.
Dookhan’s malfeasance introduced reasonable doubt as to whether the substances she tested were controlled substances. That negates the criminal conviction (because no reasonable juror could find the defendant guilty BARD in view of the tainted evidence). However, it does not exonerate the defendant. The fact that the defendant is entitled to a ‘not guilty’ verdict means that the state has not proven its case BARD.
The lower threshold for civil asset seizure means that a defendant can be simultaneously ‘not guilty’ under the BARD standard and ‘guilty’ under the civil clear and convincing evidence standard.
Coincidentally, this is exactly what happened to OJ: he was found not guilty BARD in the criminal case, but the Goldman family won their untimely death civil lawsuit against him for murdering their son, due to the lower evidentiary standard applied in civil suits.
ak47workaccnt OP t1_j7pdavm wrote
This sounds factually correct, but awful. The worst kind of correct.
PakkyT t1_j7pf2db wrote
Your OJ example was the result of a civil case brought to court and a judgement (by an actual judge) rendered. This is not the same thing as having your property seized and then the government just deciding on their own to not return it even though you were not guilty (legally speaking) of any crime. As there was no civil case that allowed the seized assets to be kept by the government, they should be returned. If the government doesn't want to, then they need a court judgement stating they can keep it.
crake t1_j7v57r3 wrote
Yeah, my example isn't exactly correct, but it's generally correct (i.e., the reason the assets were not returned notwithstanding the overturned convictions is because of the different standard of proof required for civil asset forfeiture).
The burden of proof for civil asset forfeiture is actually lower than the burden of proof for obtaining a judgment in a civil case, and there is no trial (unlike the OJ civil case). The test is (generally stated) whether police believe based on a preponderance of the evidence (as opposed to clear and convincing evidence, my error made above) that the assets are fruits of a crime, the burden is on the defendant to show that they are not fruits of a crime. In Massachusetts, the standard is that police must show probable cause to believe that the assets are fruits of a crime, a very easy threshold to meet.
>As there was no civil case that allowed the seized assets to be kept by the government, they should be returned.
I agree with you in principle, because I think civil asset forfeiture is a taking and should be subject to due process of law. Unfortunately for those who do not support civil asset forfeiture, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld it's constitutionality, so it isn't going anywhere (unless the Court changes its mind).
PakkyT t1_j7peipt wrote
'cause... cops, that's why.
Positive-Material t1_j7pnj1r wrote
It's highway robbery when it is done with fraudulent probable cause and then forced into a plea deal with threats, which seems to be standard practice.
brufleth t1_j7r41n7 wrote
MA civil commitment (imprisonment) laws are also very backwards.
There isn't a legislative will to fix them because nobody wants to be accused of being "soft on crime."
PabloX68 t1_j7q7068 wrote
I don't understand how this isn't a violation of the 5th amendment, but it's not the first time the MA supreme judicial court hasn't cared about the US Constitution.
foolproofphilosophy t1_j7rzff2 wrote
It’s like OJ Simpson: acquitted of murder but guilty of wrongful death because criminal and civil standards are different. Just ignore the part about how he had juries for each trial.
s/
Chippopotanuse t1_j7rh2z8 wrote
That’s so fucked. Wow. Those judges are awful for that.
User-NetOfInter t1_j7qmems wrote
Money go brrrrrr
spg1611 t1_j7szzmj wrote
It’s not though… who cares if a drug dealers car is sold to help the state lmao
neifirst t1_j7pcf0k wrote
We need a state constitutional amendment to ban this practice
Ideally a federal one but that seems unobtainable
PabloX68 t1_j7q5xhp wrote
The 5th amendment's takings clause should already cover this, but it seems to be ignored with civil asset forfeiture.
neifirst t1_j7q6nfg wrote
It’s because of the nonsense of jurisdiction “in rem”; the government isn’t taking from you, it’s accusing the item itself
Which is nonsense, but common law says that if you do nonsense long enough it’s fine
PabloX68 t1_j7qbwha wrote
IANAL, but I've had a lot of interactions with them dealing with patents.
As an engineer, I just don't get the way they think. It seems like a major foundation of the law is cognitive dissonance and/or willful ignorance.
petrichor1969 t1_j7s6166 wrote
The lawyers I've known have no concept of justice at all, none. They have no conscience; they only have law. If it's legal, it's moral. It's all about beating the other guy for their client's and their own wallet and dick size (although the mindset is by no means limited to persons with dicks.)
One of these guys used the law to turn an old man out of his home so his client could grab the land, and he could not for his life understand why I had a problem with that. It was legal, so ...?
PabloX68 t1_j7s7ch8 wrote
Yes. I agree with the analysis.
wittgensteins-boat t1_j7svxrw wrote
There is no justice.
Only laws, and a court to act on laws.
WarPuig t1_j7qgg4z wrote
“But how do you know it was the money they received that made them do what they did? Bribes are legal.”
Maddcapp t1_j7sujfh wrote
I can’t imagine a time when that law would have made any sense. I wonder how it all came about and what the reason was, if it wasn’t pure greed.
3720-To-One t1_j7pfvsf wrote
Yeah… “freedom-loving” republicans would never let that happen.
mattgm1995 t1_j7pm8pj wrote
STATE constitution. Democrats in MA have super majorities in the house and senate, they have the SJC, and the governors office. They can pass anything they want here unilaterally. It’s just a matter of if they care enough to do the right thing.
lostamongthelost t1_j7py7gm wrote
Narrator: They don't.
3720-To-One t1_j7pngrc wrote
“Ideally a federal one, but that seems unobtainable”
wittgensteins-boat t1_j7sw3su wrote
You assume Democrats are united on everything They are not.
mattgm1995 t1_j7swgko wrote
I don’t. The point is, in MA, they can’t go blaming boogeyman republicans anymore. It’s 100000% on them.
wittgensteins-boat t1_j7tvxuo wrote
Democratic legislators have had a supermajority in both houses since before Romney. Since before 2000.
They don't go around attribuing anthing to Republicans.
ROMNEY, in his last year in office had 100% of his grandstanding budget vetoes overturned in his last year in office.
You are beating up a straw man.
Garethx1 t1_j7q7q2s wrote
We could of course go back and forth about why this isnt ever addressed by Democrats. I dont want to give them an "out" but I think most wont touch it because even Massachusetts dems are frightened of being painted "anti-cop" and "pro-crime". I think they should say the assertion is ridiculous and explain how they want common sense legislation that protects people, but they prefer the tactic of shying away from these issues and trying out cop love the republicans.
Effective_Golf_3311 t1_j7qi9f1 wrote
Lmao … jfc… no, they definitely do not care about that.
frenchosaka t1_j7ph9n2 wrote
Both parties support it
3720-To-One t1_j7pmshf wrote
And take a wild guess which party at least has elements speaking out against it?
bOtH sIdEs!
ItsMeTK t1_j7q7qpy wrote
I’m a freedom-loving independent conservative and I fully support any efforts to combat asset forfeiture nonsense. The state has no right to a person’s property.
3720-To-One t1_j7q9ca9 wrote
And far too many “freedom-loving” conservatives are some of the biggest cop boot lickers around, and will gladly turn a blind eye to their abuse as long as cops are violating the rights of others.
Don’t tread on me, but feel free to tread on others, especially people I don’t like.
d1sass3mbled t1_j7rkkx7 wrote
It's funny seeing democrats and republicans arguing over who are the biggest boot lickers. We have the war on drugs on one side and public health pandemics on the other side (Covid and firearms). Seems like everyone is all for the police doing shady shit as long as its their shady shit.
3720-To-One t1_j7rkw9o wrote
bOtH sIDEZ!
Ah yes, because conservatives’ bootlicking for police brutality is TOTALLY the same as supporting measures to counter Covid during a pandemic.
TOTALLY the same.
d1sass3mbled t1_j7rl83s wrote
They are. If you are wanting the brutalizers to support covid measures or seize weapons then you are licking the boot too. Personally, I'd prefer armed thugs not come to my house to shoot my dog or flashbang my kids for any reason.
3720-To-One t1_j7rr3z3 wrote
Who’s seizing weapons?
Lolbertarians sure love being melodramatic.
d1sass3mbled t1_j7rz1zf wrote
In Massachusetts? The police. Kudos on the well thought out response.
3720-To-One t1_j7sn5k5 wrote
Oh no, you’re so oppressed because you can’t own any weapon you want, no questions asked.
Libertarians are an absolute joke who have no clue what real oppression actually is.
And Covid proved that. Comparing Covid measures to police brutality just shows that you have no clue what actual oppression or persecution actually is.
Maybe someday lolbertarians will grow up and realize that they don’t exist in a vacuum, and living in a society requires some degree of sacrifice for the collective good.
Cry me a river.
And let’s be real, most lolberts still just vote Republican because all you care about is guns.
d1sass3mbled t1_j7svpmv wrote
Dumbass, you don't even grasp the basic concept here. You don't get to cheer for the police state when they enforce laws you like and then bash them when you don't like what they're doing. Try being consistent in your beliefs.
I wouldn't expect much else from a eunuch though. See, I can scroll through your post history and launch ad hominem attacks too, lol.
3720-To-One t1_j7u74u0 wrote
Once again, the bOTh sidEz brigade completely lacks any sense of nuance.
No, having basic rules for society to live by, is not remotely equivalent to cops murdering people over traffic stops, no matter how badly lolberts want to feel oppressed.
d1sass3mbled t1_j7wij9t wrote
Basic rules... Like the ones cops use as an excuse to initiate traffic stops when they don't like how a driver looks? Are those the same guys enforcing your basic rules?
3720-To-One t1_j7wj8ht wrote
Stay angry, lolbertarian.
NO STEPPY ON SNEK!
d1sass3mbled t1_j7wn4y2 wrote
Nah, I've got no major complaints. Life is good. Believe what you want if it makes you feel better, but I think you may be projecting.
5entinel t1_j7pirgo wrote
Oh the republicans are in charge in MA?
3720-To-One t1_j7pneb0 wrote
What part of “federal” did you not understand?
chucktownbtown t1_j7q34sg wrote
Easy to understand. The point is there is no reason to wait. You can solve the problem locally. We do t have to sit back and wait for Washington to do everything for us.
It’s not being solved locally here because democrats equally don’t want to solve it. This isn’t a republican exclusive thing.
ben70 t1_j7q94nj wrote
Biden is a republican??
3720-To-One t1_j7qbgu4 wrote
The POTUS doesn’t write laws, do they?
ben70 t1_j7qbsuj wrote
Presidents have drafted and submitted legislation via friendly reps / senators. More importantly, if Biden weren't to sign off on the notional legislation, it would take a supermajority to enact without his signature / over his veto. POTUS has a role.
3720-To-One t1_j7qdaf4 wrote
Who who currently controls the House?
ben70 t1_j7qesi9 wrote
Kevin McCarthy, R, 20th California
3720-To-One t1_j7qf81k wrote
Cool, we’ll there’s your answer
CosmicQuantum42 t1_j7po85t wrote
This is the kind of thing we need ballot initiatives for, not raising taxes on millionaires.
The-Shattering-Light t1_j7pzf4x wrote
We need both.
TurnsOutImAScientist t1_j7pjnca wrote
We like to think of ourselves as a solid-blue liberal-minded state but on civil asset forfeiture we're one of the worst:
https://ij.org/report/policing-for-profit-2/grading-state-federal-civil-forfeiture-laws/
AnyRound5042 t1_j7pked2 wrote
The wealthy of all politics know they need their jackbooted thugs to protect their interests
TurnsOutImAScientist t1_j7pkrku wrote
Of course, but this doesn't really address why there's this incongruency with MA in particular. Methinks it's largely because we have big issues with police unions having too much political clout here.
HebrewHammer14 t1_j7ttofq wrote
Maybe they do, but we are in the top 5 safest states in the country (3rd I believe). If the police union having a little more political power then that seems like a fair trade off. I’d rather politicians figure out how to make my commute home shorter.
DUIguy87 t1_j7tutoz wrote
I don’t think we are safer because of the police or police unions tho. There isn’t really a huge connection between police funding and overall safety/crime rate across the country.
HebrewHammer14 t1_j7u7x6x wrote
I think overall we are safer as a state. If not for the police , laws and rights we have which differ from state to state then why would you say we are safer per capita than 95% of the rest of the country? By the way, I believe the only states safer than us are Maine and Vermont if I’m not mistaken. So why is this region of the country leaps and bounds safer than the rest?
DUIguy87 t1_j7uilyl wrote
We have reasonable support systems for low income families, reasonable infrastructure (deff room for improvement tho), a well educated population, support for drug addicts and generally a being wealthier state as a whole all help. Mass is also lacking the pure destitute poverty seen in other states, and people who have their basic needs meet are generally less likely to turn to crime.
In fact we manage to be one of the safest states while ranking 42nd in per capita spending on police. I think if you want to go down this road its on you to prove why more police power and funding is the answer.
HebrewHammer14 t1_j7ukzv4 wrote
Well I guess my next question would be if we are so low in spending, then why isn’t their room for improvement in terms of spending on more police to patrol places that are known for high crime? with more emphasis on public spaces. I don’t disagree with much of anything you said.
Also maybe give more leeway to home and business owners to protect their property. Right now if someone breaks into my house or business and gets hurt while trespassing I get sued for something I had no control of. Meanwhile if they are their to attack, I’m suppose to runaway and am not allowed to protect myself. All the current system does in my eyes is incentivizes crime on personal property and places all the blame on the owner.
DUIguy87 t1_j7xbboh wrote
I’m certainly not opposed to adjusting the self defense laws, but thats deff a complicated undertaking as most “castle doctrine” and “stand you ground” laws are treated as green lights for people to kill their fellow Americans. But that is a bit of a different conversation.
To the topic at hand I’d argue that since there is minimal return on investment from raising police budgets we are just wasting money in doing so. Government is inherently inefficient as sits, so I’m not sure why throwing money intentionally into bottomless pit should be considered.
At the end of the day police is just an investment in public safety and one that, even if it worked as claimed, at best will only suppress crime. If we instead used that money to build up and support communities there would be a better chance of that investment paying off. If we are in agreement that our safety is due more in part to how our state’s society is run, shoring up and expanding those programs certainly wouldn’t hurt. I’m by no means advocating removing the cops, more we are just at the point of diminishing returns with them and we need to look to other solutions.
HebrewHammer14 t1_j7yue13 wrote
How would you invest in the community? Which communities are we speaking about? I agree that just throwing money at police isn’t necessarily the answer, especially considering that I’d be worried about where that money would be taken from. I’m not for bolstering police if it meant something like taking away social programs for kids. Maybe something they could do would be to invest more money in the schools. Pay the teachers better and just in general invest more money into the future generations.
DUIguy87 t1_j8090yp wrote
Social programs for kids would be great. Community centers, local sports leagues, increased access to daycare. I’d go so far as to say more in the way of increased rent support or food subsidies for families in low income brackets, and smoothing the transition between income brackets and aid granted so there are no disincentives to advance professionally.
There is certainly a correlation between absent parents/broken families and crime. As such I feel that policies that help keep parents with their children are worth prioritizing, a parent working 70+hrs a week to support their family is still an absent parent despite how noble their cause is.
ahecht t1_j7qjm9e wrote
Just look at the Motel Caswell.
JaesopPop t1_j7rzowb wrote
That was an attempt federally, which failed.
ahecht t1_j7sf3tr wrote
The Tewksbury Police Department was heavily involved, and would've ended up with 80% of the profit. The forfeiture only failed after Caswell borrowed $100,000 to defend himself and, after that money ran out, the Institute for Justice kicked in another $400,000.
JaesopPop t1_j7sfm70 wrote
It was, regardless, a federal attempt at seizing the property. The person you responded to was referring to the states actions and laws.
mattgm1995 t1_j7pmcld wrote
I expect this out of Alabama, not MA. Democrats in MA have super majorities in the house and senate, they have the SJC, and the governors office. They can pass anything they want here unilaterally (and could have done the right ting during Baker since they had the numbers to override a veto) It’s just a matter of if they care enough to do the right thing.
TurnsOutImAScientist t1_j7ppdyd wrote
> It’s just a matter of if they care enough to do the right thing.
It's a matter of pushing policies that police unions are opposed to, and this is apparently pretty difficult around here.
mattgm1995 t1_j7psa0b wrote
Super. Majority. Every. Single. Elected. High. Office. This has to be the end of excuses
nottoodrunk t1_j7q39k8 wrote
I think a lot of people are going to realize in the next couple months that the MA legislature is the height of complacency.
Stomp_Pigs_Out t1_j7qhgkg wrote
Just look at the swarm of low level pushers enabling cop corruption, wealth disparity, on and on. The puritans here are conservative. Just because the sea of red rot that is American shifts a frame of reference doesn’t mean much. Yet here we are with all the swindled crying out about how liberal it is/ they thought it to be. Typical murrica. Heads up their asses. Clueless and beaten down. “Be grateful for what you have though1!!!!! 🥴
[deleted] t1_j7s9k6g wrote
[deleted]
sciencegeniusgirl t1_j7q3c5a wrote
I understand the sentiment but places like Massachusetts often ride high on the smug “we aren’t like those backwards states.” And in some regards, it’s true. But in others, we are no better than the backwoods good ole-boys of the Deep South…especially when it comes to the criminal justice system. Look at incarceration rates by race in this state and you can see a trend. For a state not necessarily known for its racial diversity, it sure does lock up a hell of a lot of black and brown people.
If you’re interested, there’s a great book called “When a Heart Turns Rock Solid” by Timothy Black that profiles the lives of three Puerto-Rican brothers who grew up in Springfield in the ‘80’s and ‘90s. It really pulls the curtain back on “liberal” Massachusetts and it’s garbage-ass policies that have truly decimated entire communities and generations of families.
legalpretzel t1_j7sbz8i wrote
We have FAR worse rates re: foster care placements and DCF interventions than many red states. Our state is renowned for having an abysmal child welfare system.
We do great on children’s welfare in general, but horribly on metrics involving children in poverty and children in foster care and family reunification.
https://friendsofchildreninc.org/failing-our-kids/
Edit: if you don’t want to click the link the basic message is that children in foster care would be better off in ANY other state than in MA.
sciencegeniusgirl t1_j7sdu50 wrote
Couldn’t agree more. None of that is surprising to me; depressing, yes—but surprising, absolutely not. Mass likes to masquerade itself as some “liberal paradise” but the systems here can be so entirely fucked for so many people. It’s the smugness of some people here who act so haughty when speaking of other, more traditionally red states. People often bring up stats around the superiority of the Massachusetts public school system in relation to other places, for example. But if you peel back a few layers, you see how drastically different (read: worse) that public education can be based on what city/town you’re in or your zip code. It’s honestly exhausting trying to have these conversations with people who wear the rose-colored glasses and believe that this state is so superior.
Stomp_Pigs_Out t1_j7qkrzk wrote
That’s because you’ve been fooled into thinking MA is progressive or liberal
majoroutage t1_j7s9o0v wrote
Cash register go brrrrrr and very few politicians are actually interested in stopping that.
spitfish t1_j7pz58m wrote
If you want to change our civil forfeiture laws, contact your local & state representatives. Find your State legislator It's the only way it will ever change.
ak47workaccnt OP t1_j7pzv60 wrote
I contacted James Arciero about it almost a year ago. This was his office's response:
>Civil asset forfeiture seems to be an issue whose time has come and gone. We do not see any momentum for its increased use as a tool of law enforcement.
Unfortunately he had no primary challenger last election. Plus I took it to mean that he doesn't really have the pull in the statehouse to get anything done about it.
spitfish t1_j7q512l wrote
Hi again! I was thinking about this comment on an older thread while writing this. In your case, I wonder if contacting the party itself would have any impact.
Positive-Material t1_j7pnf7x wrote
I am guessing the prosecutors, judges, cops and officials wanted the drug tests rubber stamped as positive to close cases no matter what and pressured the staff to do that, then blamed the fall guy whom they forced to do this for doing it independently.
CustyMojo t1_j7pyspj wrote
This statement just shows you have no idea what was going on in these situations. Annie had a crush on the DA so she was dry labbing test results to help put away defendants to get him to like her...and Sonja was using lab reagent standards to get high at work.
Comfortable-Scar4643 t1_j7pu19k wrote
I don’t think that’s what happened here. Watch the documentary. Sonja and Annie had some major personality issues.
foolproofphilosophy t1_j7ryy11 wrote
Civil Asset Forfeiture is insane.
majoroutage t1_j7s1eqw wrote
As are the clowns defending it.
foolproofphilosophy t1_j7s44en wrote
I’m aware of the Goldberg Rule and in this case choose to ignore it.
peteysweetusername t1_j7q3v8b wrote
God damm, why wasn’t this rectified years ago. The bar for Civil forfeiture should be “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Herion dealers should not be able to keep their cash or cars purchased with drug money but having such a low bar on the books leads to cases like that of motel caswell in Tewksbury
majoroutage t1_j7rsu7x wrote
The bar for civil asset forfeiture should be "not fucking ever."
No criminal conviction = cops can go pound sand. The burden to prove where the money came from should always be on the state. Taking people's shit because it's suspected to come from drugs when the person has not been found guilty of any related crimes to connect the dots isn't enough.
peteysweetusername t1_j7sqi7r wrote
It should be criminal asset forfeiture
majoroutage t1_j7sujyj wrote
Yes.
_Hack_The_Planet_ t1_j7qo5qo wrote
Considering she (Dookhan) was convicted in 2012, they really are taking their sweet time with this. What is the interest rate?
[deleted] t1_j7ph4zu wrote
[deleted]
fthemcars t1_j7sgl6t wrote
oooo that’s another statute to battle completely. C 258 sec 10(d). I had a case where arrested dude claimed police department “lost” his SUPER EXPENSIVE watch and despite believing him completely I had to argue for dismissal and won 🤷🏻♀️🤷🏻♀️🤷🏻♀️
Ialnyien t1_j7q6ojx wrote
Speaking from direct experience.
My family member got off from this with no repercussions outside of the asset forfeiture.
That member was guilty as all heck, and deserved to spend time for dealing.
Instead they were given a clear second chance with no history.
There is no best answer here, as many of these individuals are guilty. In my opinion they should take the win they got and move on.
If some were wrongly convicted/ assets stolen, by all means return their stuff, but if they can prove being the 50% likelihood it was criminal activity, it should not be returned.
ItsMeTK t1_j7q87v2 wrote
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
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
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
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
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.
mp246 t1_j7qfday wrote
>Instead they were given a clear second chance with no history.
Just a reminder, the state did that and the blame falls squarely on the state.
Ialnyien t1_j7qgust wrote
No doubt and I’m thankful for that, my family member turned it around.
However, should they be entitled to keep the gains from their illicit activities?
mp246 t1_j7qk80w wrote
> should they be entitled to keep the gains from their illicit activities?
Your family member, morally speaking, should get their money back. Asset forfeiture should be illegal.
But those who are convicted of a crime (cough legally cough) should have assets seized.
Ialnyien t1_j7qvfb0 wrote
We’re going to have to agree to disagree.
I think an argument can be made that it is case specific. In the case of the drug lab issue, I would find it very challenging to return assets to those that are at least 51% likely to have earned it illicitly.
Out of curiosity, do you keep track of where your assets come from? I believe that if these individuals can prove where the assets arrived from, they’d be released if it was legitimately earned.
I’ll withhold my outrage until I see proof that assets have been proven to be earned legitimately and still not returned.
majoroutage t1_j7rwcck wrote
>Out of curiosity, do you keep track of where your assets come from? I believe that if these individuals can prove where the assets arrived from, they’d be released if it was legitimately earned.
The burden should always be on the state to prove a crime was committed, and that the money were earned through its commission, not the other way around. You know, like, by holding a trial and presenting evidence that proves their guilt of a crime, and that that money is connected to it.
maralagosinkhole t1_j7uxb8u wrote
Without a criminal or civil conviction they should absolutely be entitled to keep their gains from an allegedly illicit activity
peteysweetusername t1_j7ufnen wrote
You should research “motel caswell” in Tewksbury. It closed years ago and is now a retail strip but the government tried to take the property through civil forfeiture. There were 14 drug related arrests at the property during a time where he rented 200,000 rooms. I used to live up there and there was more drug activity at a McDonald’s down the street but the government didn’t go after that corporate property.
The owner ended up having to front $100,000 in legal fees before a non profit ended up taking the case. The judge ended up ruling in caswells favor after years of stress and money spent.
This is the problem with civil forfeiture because you need to prove your innocence against the government which has unlimited resources compared to a private citizen. The government just has to make an accusation.
BrockVegas t1_j7q7qws wrote
Way too many here pretending that they were all merely just victims of justice failing.
successiseffort t1_j7rhidl wrote
You are right. Better to steal from and incarcerate all of them
BrockVegas t1_j7rxm9s wrote
"won't someone think of the poor poor drug dealers"
fuck right off
successiseffort t1_j7rz44a wrote
Coming from brockton im sure you are sick of crime but eliminating due process is no way to fix it
majoroutage t1_j7s0zfj wrote
You buy a nice car with cash you were saving up.
Someone questions whether you could afford it.
The police accuse you of a crime.
They take your car away claiming it was bought with proceeds from the crime.
They fail to prove you committed the crime. You are found not guilty.
You do not get your car back.
In what universe is this fair?
It shouldn't be up to you to prove you saved the cash lawfully. It's up to the state to prove you didn't.
ak47workaccnt OP t1_j7p1wyv wrote
>To seize money or property under civil forfeiture rules, the state needs to show there's "probable cause" that it's connected to the criminal activity, Fick explained. If someone wants the seized assets back, he said, it's their responsibility to bring an action to prove it wasn't connected to an offense.
Just a reminder that civil asset forfeiture is highway robbery.
>The state's Supreme Judicial Court ruled in 2018 that civil forfeitures in the Farak and Dookhan cases do not need to be returned.
I don't understand how they can vacate all of those convictions, but keep the money they stole from them.