As long as the punishment is equivalent and DIRECTLY related to the crimes committed, I doubt most people would have any issue with it.
If a drug cartel makes billions of dollars from their dealings in drugs, and if everything they purchased with that money got confiscated, then I would say too bad, too sad for them. Probably most reasonable people would agree.
But for some average Joe driving through Louisiana to have his vehicle and all his cash seized because cops found the cash had some miniscule trace of drugs on some of the bills detected by a lab test, no, sorry, I don't agree with that at all. As such, the burden of PROOF really needs to be on law enforcement to prove their case BEFORE any such confiscation, not the other away around with the VICTIM having to prove their innocence and sue to get their property back.
The Fourth Amendment is pretty clear about this.
Quote:
|
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
|
Even such things as "fishing" expeditions based on vague suspicion hoping to find some incriminating evidence really needs to stop. Yeah, bad guys might get away with something because "probable cause" and/or firm proof of illegality is lacking. But the violation of innocent parties is really not worth it to us as a country considering the violation of rights and privacy that has to be abused in order for law enforcement to perpetrate such acts.
And certainly under no circumstances should the law enforcement and court agencies at any level act as plundering mercenaries keeping any of the "spoils" gained in the enforcement and conviction of the law. That sort of "incentive" for law enforcement and judicial proceedings cannot help but be abused.