Court decision boosts fight against drugs

[Syndyre]

While most people won't want to support an alleged drug dealer the legal provisions used against him could easily be used against anybody else, and they look rather suspect.

he was unconditionally acquitted of drug charges four years later, after the court found that the warrants used to search his home were unlawful.

So the police messed up the investigation/raid presumably.

Because the state had applied for the seizure and eventual forfeiture of Prophet's property under chapter 6 of the act, it was not required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the house had been used to manufacture drugs.

While chapter 5 is concerned with the forfeiture of the proceeds of crime and can be successful only when the "defendant" is convicted of an offence, chapter 6, which provides for forfeiture of the proceeds of and instrumentalities used in crime, is not conviction-based and may be invoked even when there is no prosecution.

Why was it not necessary to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, because it was a cibil case? How can it not be conviction-based? Sure if its a separate issue that's one thing, but the evidence used was gleaned from an illegal raid, how can that be admissible?

This effectively means that the guilt or wrongdoing of the owners or possessors of the seized property is not primarily relevant to the proceedings.

Wonderful.

 

[pope24]

I am guessing that because the seizure is an economic punishment and not a personal one, it is possible to be more lenient in applying the law.
Basically if your car is used to transport drugs the state can confiscate it even if you had no knowledge of the drugs and didn't agree that it could be used for that purpose.

This is open for abuse but the way crime is going it will be a while before they start going after ordinary citizens.

 

[Syndyre]

I am guessing that because the seizure is an economic punishment and not a personal one, it is possible to be more lenient in applying the law.
Basically if your car is used to transport drugs the state can confiscate it even if you had no knowledge of the drugs and didn't agree that it could be used for that purpose.

This is open for abuse but the way crime is going it will be a while before they start going after ordinary citizens.

Ok but what if the evidence used to justify this seizure was gathered illegally? Depends how you define crime, what if being against the government becomes a crime?

 

[pupa]

I am guessing that because the seizure is an economic punishment and not a personal one, it is possible to be more lenient in applying the law.
Basically if your car is used to transport drugs the state can confiscate it even if you had no knowledge of the drugs and didn't agree that it could be used for that purpose.

This is open for abuse but the way crime is going it will be a while before they start going after ordinary citizens.

Hmmm....If your car drive over the speed limmit they can confiscate your car and resell it legally whether you are found guilty or not...Not?

 

[Syndyre]

Hmmm....If your car drive over the speed limmit they can confiscate your car and resell it legally whether you are found guilty or not...Not?

At one stage in PE they were seizing the cars of drunk drivers, even if the driver didn't own the car. Not sure how they justified it legally.

 

[Darth Garth]

At one stage in PE they were seizing the cars of drunk drivers, even if the driver didn't own the car. Not sure how they justified it legally.

Only for habitual drunken drivers and not first time offenders ... if they can't stop themselves from acting utterly stupid then the state must surely step in and protect the rest of us from these dumb a$$ fools.

 

[neio]

So basically if you have cough medicine,drain cleaner and a box of matches in your house the state can confiscate it.

 

[icyrus]

Only for habitual drunken drivers and not first time offenders ... if they can't stop themselves from acting utterly stupid then the state must surely step in and protect the rest of us from these dumb a$$ fools.

Did they do jail time before having their cars confiscated? If not, why?

 

[jontyB]

Hmmm....If your car drive over the speed limmit they can confiscate your car and resell it legally whether you are found guilty or not...Not?

No. Firstly it is a civil crime, and secondly what proceeds have you gained from your crime apart from getting somewhere faster?

 

[Darth Garth]

Did they do jail time before having their cars confiscated? If not, why?

So what category does driving under the influence fall under ???.

You merely pay a fine or if worst case get a suspended sentence and the idea is that you will hopefully change your behaviour just like when you get a speeding fine and pay an admission of guilt fine.

Obviously some people in our society insist on being stupid and behave like little children and just must bear the consequences of their actions.

I fully support the big stick being used by the state against these malcontents.

 

[noxibox]

A similar law in the US has been heavily abused since its inception. It has become a basic tool for stealing private property with impunity.

And anyone who really thinks this will have any real impact on major drug organisations needs to lay off the moonshine.

 

[icyrus]

So what category does driving under the influence fall under ???.

I don't know, I was hoping you would tell me.

You merely pay a fine or if worst case get a suspended sentence and the idea is that you will hopefully change your behaviour just like when you get a speeding fine and pay an admission of guilt fine.

Obviously some people in our society insist on being stupid and behave like little children and just must bear the consequences of their actions.

I fully support the big stick being used by the state against these malcontents.

Why go the confiscate property route? Why not change the law that DUI is a jailtime offence. Isn't that the better solution?

 

[Darth Garth]

A similar law in the US has been heavily abused since its inception. It has become a basic tool for stealing private property with impunity.

Jeez ... you are really utterly confused with the concept "emminent domain" ... this has buggerall to do with it .

Don't they teach "reading with comprehension" in school anymore ???.

 

[Darth Garth]

I don't know, I was hoping you would tell me.

It is a Category 3 offence ... you won't do jail time unless it involved the death of a person.

Why go the confiscate property route? Why not change the law that DUI is a jailtime offence. Isn't that the better solution?

A lot of productive middle class and decent law abiding first time offenders would be sitting in jail then.

How many times did we tell or here our mates telling stories of how smashed they got at this hot party and how we ended up at home with no recollection how we got there ???.

 

[jontyB]

It is a Category 3 offence ... you won't do jail time unless it involved the death of a person.



A lot of productive middle class and decent law abiding first time offenders would be sitting in jail then.

How many times did we tell or here our mates telling stories of how smashed they got at this hot party and how we ended up at home with no recollection how we got there ???.

Then they deserve at the minumum community service and a big fine if not some jail time. You know how many accidents are caused by these morons?

 

[icyrus]

It is a Category 3 offence ... you won't do jail time unless it involved the death of a person.



A lot of productive middle class and decent law abiding first time offenders would be sitting in jail then.

How many times did we tell or here our mates telling stories of how smashed they got at this hot party and how we ended up at home with no recollection how we got there ???.

But you said that the confiscations only happened to repeat offenders. So whats wrong with jailtime fore repeat offenders.

Drunk drivers will find sympathy hard to come by from most people.

 

[noxibox]

you are really utterly confused with the concept "emminent domain" ... this has buggerall to do with it

Whatever does eminent domain have to do with an asset forfeiture law?

this has buggerall to do with it

Why are you mentioning it?

 

[Darth Garth]

So whats wrong with jailtime fore repeat offenders.

Not for drunk driving ... it is too harsh of a punishment for the type of crime committed.

Rather take away the instrument that enables him to commit said crime i.e his car.

 

[jontyB]

Not for drunk driving ... it is too harsh of a punishment for the type of crime committed.

Rather take away the instrument that enables him to commit said crime i.e his car.

but that is not practically applicable in South Africa for the following reasons:

1. We don't have enought resources to handle this
2. Virtually every driver in this country drives drunk at some or other time
3. In 99% of the cases you're not confiscating the person's property, but the banks.
4. Most busts happen at a roadblock - where are you going to park all those cars on say a Saturday evening after a major sporting event where the majority of the drivers are at the very least over the legal blood/alcohol limit?

 

[Darth Garth]

In 99% of the cases you're not confiscating the person's property, but the banks.

The law has covered this issue already ... but this is the beauty of the whole system ... they won't be able to buy another car for a few years yet having to pay the bank for a car they no longer own ... they will surely not offend again and it will make them think twice before drinking and driving.