9 - 0!
Perhaps there is hope after all!
As I said in the other thread, Indiana: bringing consensus to the Supreme Court.
9 - 0!
Perhaps there is hope after all!
In general I don't see anything excessive about confiscating the criminal's property directly used to facilitate a felony, be they scales, bongs, or luxury SUV. Guy clubs someone, you don't give him his baseball bat back when he gets out of prison.
I do see a problem with allowing the police agency and prosecutor's office who are handling the crime making a profit off of it. That is a huge unethical conflict of interest. Issue for another case, I guess.
Taking property that has more value than the maximum fine for a crime is wrong.In general I don't see anything excessive about confiscating the criminal's property directly used to facilitate a felony, be they scales, bongs, or luxury SUV. Guy clubs someone, you don't give him his baseball bat back when he gets out of prison.
I do see a problem with allowing the police agency and prosecutor's office who are handling the crime making a profit off of it. That is a huge unethical conflict of interest. Issue for another case, I guess.
Justice Slaughter, did you check under the penumbra?
...I kinda agree with Slaughter's dissent.
Taking property that has more value than the maximum fine for a crime is wrong.
If the question is ever, "should the state have more power," my answer will always be no.
When things are civilly forfeited, do they get returned to the "rightful" party, or does the government keep it? If the government keeps it, how is that justice?
Asking for a friend.