Thursday, March 22, 2007

DPF on asset forfeiture

Over on Kiwiblog, DPF responds to a piece by Jordan Carter on asset forfeiture, and voices his opposition to the government's Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill:

I largely agree with [Jordan Carter]. I empathise with the desire to stop gangs living off the proceeds of illegal activity, but having the state able to confiscate assets not on the basis of convictions beyond a reasonable doubt, but suspicion of wrong doing by people not charged or even found not guilty is wrong.

Yes under this law one can be found not guilty of (for example) selling drugs yet the Government could take your house away all the same if it can make a case on balance of probabilities that you funded it from selling such drugs. And they could even take the house away before they even try you on the criminal issue.

DPF's opposition is commendable, but he leaves out one very significant fact: that the National Party supported the bill at its first reading. Jordan criticised his party where criticism was due; it would be nice if DPF showed enough intellectual integrity to do the same.


You are a moron. The introduction motion is only the first stage of the process for any Bill and there are still a number of votes it would have to pass through to get through Parliament.

That National voted for its introduction is insignificant and of no relevance whatsoever. It's a cheap political shot totally lacking any merit.

Posted by Anonymous : 3/22/2007 11:40:00 PM

Uhmmmm no. A cheap shot is calling somebody a moron and not signing your name to it "Anonymous".

I think you kinda proved his point about the hypocrisy of the right-wing eh.

This bill should never made it to the first reading with such a gaping flaw .

Posted by zANavAShi : 3/23/2007 12:08:00 AM

zANavAShi: it's not a "flaw" - it's the intent. The government wants to undermine the fundamentals of justice so it can appear "tough on crime". And through their vote (and their criticisms of the previous incarnation for not being tough enough), national has shown that they support it.

Posted by Idiot/Savant : 3/23/2007 12:17:00 AM

I thought the implicit criticism of National was pretty obvious, but yes I could have made it explicit.

Posted by David Farrar : 3/23/2007 06:54:00 AM

Is'nt this bill just some back door tax on crime scheme.

The nats dont think it goes far enough because their extra tough on crime and are gonna deal to the gangs ................... just like muldoon did.

DPF's blog has not let me put up any posts for quite a while now so I've stopped reading the three ring circus that his comments section is.

Now if we had guilt by association laws poor old DPF would be banged up quick smart.

Posted by Anonymous : 3/23/2007 03:54:00 PM

The real issue is that Labour and National are both trying to outbid each other in the 'who is tougher on crime' issue, which nobody can win. Locking people up doesn't solve crime, and in some cases makes for worse criminals! We should be talking about restorative justice and crime prevention a whole lot more!

Posted by Chris : 3/26/2007 07:19:00 AM