Supreme Court case on property rights

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Shivetya, Oct 26, 2009.

  1. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    #1
  2. macrumors 65816

    CorvusCamenarum

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    #2
    Cui bono?
    IMO, property such as this should not be seizable until after a conviction.
     
  3. Ugg
    macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #3
    How do you propose ensuring that the property is still there after the conviction? Obviously there needs to be some sort of means to prevent the sale or transfer or disposal of the property. Cars, jewelry, cash are all easily hid.

    It looks as though Illinois needs a quicker and more transparent process. However, in Madoff's case, not seizing it immediately meant less money was recoverable later on. The guilty should pay.
     
  4. macrumors 601

    Tesselator

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Location:
    Japan
    #4
    A man's property may be his only means of assembling a proper defense in the first place. The government state and federal, have no right to seize property if purely by natural law. If the property itself is illegal (by local laws ONLY! The Feds do NOT have this right.) or was obtained illegally that's different of course.
     

Share This Page