EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum
Views:
1048

That states should have the power of civil forfeiture

(PRO)
WINNER!
4 points
(CON)
0 points
JackSpratJackSprat (PRO)
A summary of my position, which I shall add to later, and shall use the US as an assumptive jurisdiction.

1.  Civil forfeiture allows a mechanism to keep profits from illegal activity out of circulation
2.  Civil forfeiture is still protected by due process.   To seize property for forfeiture, a warrant is required unless under an exception to the Fourth Amendment.  (plain view or found incidental to a search) in many instances, forfeiture seizures are more limited than their evidentiary counterparts.  18 U.S.C. ยง981(b)(2) (in money laundering cases, warrantless seizures are authorized during searches incident to arrest, but not in other exigent circumstances).
3.  There are more protections such as iin order to take a house or property, appropriate opportunity and notice must be provided. (United States v. James Daniel Good Property, 114 S. Ct. 492 (1993), The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires the government to give property owners more "process" than is due under the Fourth Amendment.
4.  Even if property is seized, there are remedies available in court.

In summary civil forfeiture is an effective mechanism to remove illicit property, for which there are effective due process initiatives to have said property returned if in fact the source or possession was not illegal.



Return To Top | Posted:
2020-04-22 17:13:54
| Speak Round
JackSpratJackSprat (PRO)
As a side note, I  would guess the forfeit rate is > 80% here.  Previous position still stands.
Return To Top | Posted:
2020-04-28 17:34:11
| Speak Round


View As PDFSpeak Debate

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!