[ccleve]

I do not agree with this argument, but it goes like this:

If a wealthy drug dealer has cars, boats, houses and whatnot that are used in the course of committing crimes, the government should be able to seize them to stop them from continuing to be used for this purpose. If a drug dealer has a large amount of cash earned from the sale of drugs, he should not be able to use his ill-gotten gains to pay for lawyers or escape or anything else. Also, the seizures help local law enforcement defray the cost of catching the criminal, a cost they would not have had to incur had he not been a criminal.

Again, I think these are terrible arguments, but there you are.

[s73v3r_]

Right, but that's an argument for after the crime has been proven. It's not an argument for seizing property just on the thought that one might be involved in crime.

[Sacho]

The counter-argument here would be that the drug dealer should not be able to use the cash(and other assets) they obtained through their crimes to defend themselves. Waiting until conviction would mean that the alleged criminal could exhaust those assets as part of his defense.

[s73v3r_]

I don't think that counter argument can be made. Until the crime is proven, the assumption has to be that those assets were gotten legally. Otherwise, really, what's to stop police from seizing the assets of anyone who's case might be shaky?