The New Deodands?

May 4, 2004 2:30 AM

The new deodands? You too can enjoy the spoils of law. To be clear: it isn't the person that they're prosecuting, it's the cash, the house, the boat, the clothing... hence case names like 'United States v. $242,484'.
posted by snarfodox (14 comments total)

Very interesting case... it looks to me like justice was served.

I wonder how long it will take her to get her dough back. Will the government give her cash, or the cashier's check they converted her stack to?
posted by dfowler at 8:38 AM on May 4, 2004

Justice would be served if the thugs who confiscated the money were fined or imprisoned.
posted by Kwantsar at 8:46 AM on May 4, 2004

"Hmmm, I'm hungry. Next on the docket, United States vs. that philly cheesteak over there."
posted by sklero at 8:49 AM on May 4, 2004

cheese steak?
posted by sklero at 8:49 AM on May 4, 2004

I didn't know about deodands. In a recent documentary on Shakespeare the presenter, Michael Wood, recounted the story of a killing from the court records. I thought it was odd that the record mentioned the value of the knife used. Now I know why.

Drug forfeiture laws are - to use the proper legal terminology - wack. Still, they have provided a lot of Trans Ams for a lot of DARE programs for a lot of police departments.
posted by putzface_dickman at 8:52 AM on May 4, 2004

They are police, and they think they're doing their jobs.

Our justice system, in cases like this, seeks to and succeeds in clarifying exactly what that job is.
posted by dfowler at 8:53 AM on May 4, 2004

Um, civil forfeiture. No big.
posted by Bag Man at 10:13 AM on May 4, 2004

This is not just 'drug war law' by the way. There are forfeiture statutes to handle fraud, gambling, money laundering or even aiding the return of a banished person onto Pawnee land. I could go on. My understanding is that there are now several hundred forfeiture laws currently in operation in the US.

If you want some guidelines as to how to use federal forfeiture laws read the DOJ's own guidelines. They seem to be looking for a minimum of $5000 worth of assets to go after. State and local laws are far less discerning and tend to focus on the seizure of cars and cash. At the federal level the US Department of Treasury Forfeiture Fund reported [PDF] total gross non-exchange revenues of US$266,300,000.
posted by snarfodox at 11:06 AM on May 4, 2004

wow, snarfodox, that does add an interesting bit of info.
posted by dejah420 at 11:08 AM on May 4, 2004

you know, i kind of like the idea of deodands, in the sense of "hit 'em where it hurts--their wallet". admittedly i'm not in favor of the law, because of how badly it can be misused, but i can appreciate it.

how many checks and balances are there for this stuff? it seems it's just part of the legal system, so there isn't any check or balance except for the appeal process. unappealing.
posted by taumeson at 11:28 AM on May 4, 2004

taumeson: these cases are civil cases against property, not people and therefore don't allow for constitutional protections such as double jeopardy. In 1999 the Chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary claimed that “80% of people whose property is taken are never charged with, let alone convicted of, a crime. And because forfeiture is a civil proceeding, not a criminal one, the process is easily accomplished and hard to reverse.”
posted by snarfodox at 11:58 AM on May 4, 2004

It should be noted that these laws have been reformed over time both in legislation and through court challenges, but there are a huge number of them and whenever they are set back the legislators tends to push through new laws to replace them.

I wonder if this law could be used to confiscate a computer distributing mp3 files over a peer to peer network...
posted by snarfodox at 12:57 PM on May 4, 2004

Article 420! Yeahhhhh!
posted by dfowler at 1:26 PM on May 4, 2004

Deodands...sounds crazy yes, but as O.W. Holmes remarked, even a civilized person will kick the door that stubs their toe.
posted by quercus at 3:10 PM on May 4, 2004