The Shotgun Blog
« One Man's Cheater... | Main | Manitoba Premier Resigns »
Friday, August 28, 2009
The selling of seized property and the presumption of innocence
According to the Globe & Mail, a Toronto man's bike shop has been seized and will likely be sold off by the government because he is accused of a crime. Note that it is accused and not convicted of a crime. According to the article this man has not even gone through the preliminary hearings and he has to fight in a forfeiture hearing to protect his property.
There is a good reason for the tradition of a presumption of innocence in the courts. It is because the results of treating an innocent man as if he is guilty is far worse than if they treat a guilty man as if he was innocent. The selling of this man's property is a clear illustration of this.
What if the man is innocent and they have sold his business? He certainly looks guilty but there is a possibility that he will be found not guilty. In this case his life's work will be ruined because he was falsely accused. On the other hand if he was to be found guilty but the assets were not seized and sold, merely frozen, then they will still be there to be seized and sold after conviction. It is far better to wait to sell a guilty man's stolen assets than it is to steal the property of an innocent man.
The most disheartening part of this story is that the Supreme Court did not strike down this law. I will give Mr. Trudeau credit, for he did try and include property rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Yet that missing article is costing Canadians dearly.
Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on August 28, 2009 | Permalink
Comments
"I will give Mr. Trudeau credit, for he did try and include property rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms."
Where is this coming from? My memory of that era is that Trudeau kept property rights out of the Charter. He teased us with it but pulled it in the end. He was too smart to let it stay in. He was into that "property is theft" Marxist line while ignoring his own inherited fortune.
Posted by: John Chittick | 2009-08-28 10:23:00 AM
It was my understanding (from a university lecture and other sources) that he meant to put property rights in the charter but was blocked by the premiers.
Don't misunderstand, I am not claiming that Trudeau was an overall friend to property rights. I was just mentioning that it almost got into the charter.
Posted by: hughmacintyre | 2009-08-28 10:32:28 AM
Sick government thugs. No different than the mafia.
Posted by: Freedom Manitoba | 2009-08-28 10:34:52 AM
The situation in Toronto man's case is symptomatic of the very thing Libertarians are against. Seizure of property by the state / the right to own and defend property.
The State however is eager to seize all it can every time it can and finds no happiness in the restraints of justice. That is why we have a "legal" system, not a justice system.
The circumstances of this case and others like it serve to outline the activies of Pirates more so than a responsible government.
And the Charter says we have "the right to >enjoy< property" cute play on words eh?
Who's property are they talking about?
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-08-28 10:38:08 AM
Ooops! I didn't mean for that to read as though Libertarians are against the right to own and defend property...quite the opposite.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-08-28 10:39:16 AM
Hugh, you have simply got to stop picking such obvious losers to make your case if you want respect. Thousands of stolen bicyles were found on this man's property, in various stages of disassembly. His property was being used to warehouse stolen goods. That is already established fact. No trial is necessary to confirm this fact. The man is a career criminal. All the trial can do is ascertain the degree to which he is culpable.
I will concede that the property should be held in trust and not sold until the conviction has been obtained. Apart from that, I have no problem. If you don't want your property seized, don't use the proceeds of crime to buy it. Better yet, don't be a criminal at all.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-28 11:03:27 AM
"I will concede that the property should be held in trust and not sold until the conviction has been obtained."
dude, that was all that I was saying.
Also note that I said he looks guilty, but his guilt is not the issue. The issue is the presumption of innocence and the treatment of seized property before conviction. It appears that we agree on those issues.
Posted by: hughmacintyre | 2009-08-28 11:12:50 AM
Wow. Now thats bad.
I heard that a few years ago that Home Owners Associations could sell your house out from under you for unpaid dues. Then keep all the proceeds.
I doubted it was true but the story said it was being addressed by the legislator.
Posted by: GeronL | 2009-08-28 11:15:28 AM
Based on the evidence I see no problem with holding the property while awaiting his conviction. This would prevent him or others from removing evidence and from further profiting from stolen goods. However, the state should not be allowed to dispose/sell the property without due process. The bottom line is that needs to be some kind of balance rather than two opposite extremes.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-08-28 11:55:29 AM
Innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of law. This is nothing but theft. Allowing this kind of thing to take place makes the government no better than those it is supposed to be prosecuting.
A better example of this is the guy who had his 26,000 dollars in cash seized(stolen) by the police and courts because he was pulled over and had the cash on him and some lights in his trunk that "could" be used to grow cannabis. He was never charged with anything and no drugs were found. The cops stole his money and the courts approved of the theft.
Posted by: DrGreenthumb | 2009-08-28 12:14:56 PM
"Where is this coming from? My memory of that era is that Trudeau kept property rights out of the Charter."
I heard Roy Romanow had a hand in that. It earned him a scowl from me at the airport once. That'll teach him.
Posted by: K Stricker | 2009-08-28 4:24:59 PM
Although I have no problem with seizure of property when proven guilty, There is something disturbing in the rush to seize before proven guilty. Why the rush ?? How much lower will the bar be set if this is not challenged ??
Posted by: peterj | 2009-08-28 11:46:48 PM
peterj, you say it is disturbing to seize property before the person has been proved guilty, but you are not taking into account that the property consisted of stolen goods. That was proved according to reports. To leave the stolen property in the hands of the man until his case works its way through the courts allows him to remove and dispose of the evidence. It only makes sense to me that the property be frozen (not sold) and used as evidence.
I am of course assuming that there is already ample proof that the property was stolen and not simply being suspected of being stolen.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-08-29 11:16:27 AM
Ontario, the nicest fascist state on earth. And just how are you people more socially progressive than anyone? Note to Albertans: if you see an Ontarian on the street, spit on them.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-08-29 11:35:17 AM
Alain
" am of course assuming that there is already ample proof that the property was stolen and not simply being suspected of being stolen."
I have no problem with the removal of suspected stolen propery. What makes me nervous is Hughs example of seizure that go well beyond the stolen items, such as buildings,property, vehicles and the like before the person has been proven guilty
That is what police states do. We already lack property rights. Where would this end ?
Posted by: peterj | 2009-08-29 1:17:00 PM
Note to Albertans: if you see an Ontarian on the street, spit on them.
Posted by: Zebulon Punk | 2009-08-29 11:35:17 AM
When Da Punk left Alberta this caused the Alberta provincial IQ average to go up to 75. When he moved to Alabama he caused the Alabama state average to go below 70. For Canada there was certainly no brain drain when Da Punk left.
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-08-29 5:16:06 PM
peterj, then we are both in agreement and sorry if I misunderstood you.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-08-29 8:18:33 PM
The laws applies to the poor, for the benefit of the establishment.. and let them eat cake if they do not like it...
Posted by: Redfaced | 2009-08-31 10:44:06 AM
Reality- Alberta is the most fascist state on earth. And the Conservatives too, more than anyone
Note to Albertans: if you see an Albertan on the street, and he will not look at you it is cause he too got laid off... now is on welfare..
Thank God for the BQ that keeps them out of power..
Posted by: Terminal | 2009-08-31 10:48:37 AM
Harper has to give jobs to his friends otherwise on their own they would not merit it
Posted by: Reality | 2009-08-31 10:51:20 AM
The laws applies to the poor, for the benefit of the establishment.. and let them eat cake if they do not like it...
Yes, Bill Gates, Conrad Black, O.J. Simpson, and Bernard Madoff would doubtless agree.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-31 11:06:52 AM
Reality- Alberta is the most fascist state on earth. And the Conservatives too, more than anyone...Thank God for the BQ that keeps them out of power...
Turnabout's fair play. Québec is the most socialist state on Earth outside of a bona fide communist dictatorship. And what's more, it hasn't been in the black since Duplessis died. Without handouts gleaned largely courtesy Alberta, they would have been bankrupt long ago. A classic example of how not to run a province.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-31 11:09:22 AM
Harper has to give jobs to his friends otherwise on their own they would not merit it
Yes, unlike the fashion designer Chrétien appointed to the Senate.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-08-31 11:10:05 AM
At least the fashion designer could probably read and write, unlike the illiterate that Harper appointed.
Posted by: DrGreenthumb | 2009-09-01 12:57:29 PM
My understanding of the Common Law was that a man's property is a part of his person.
Any Supreme Court justice who didn't strike this idiotic and clearly unlawful Act down should be stripped of their robes for failing to defend the Common Law (if not actively seeking to destroy it). Parliament has engaged in theft and MPs should be held criminally responsible for their Act. It's a no-brainer.
Posted by: crjc | 2009-09-02 1:37:18 PM
At least the fashion designer could probably read and write, unlike the illiterate that Harper appointed.
I'll take an illiterate man with good street smarts and practical sense over a woman who can read, but reads only Cosmopolitan. Besides, he's not illiterate anymore. But the fashion designer we're not sure about; I note your use of the word "probably."
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-02 2:06:10 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.