Comments on: The Forfeiture of Offence-Related Property: Craig v. Her Majesty the Queen http://www.thecourt.ca/2008/11/17/the-forfeiture-of-offence-related-property-craig-v-her-majesty-the-queen/ The Court is the online resource for data and debate about the Supreme Court of Canada. Fri, 10 Feb 2012 22:34:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Ron Dabor Sr. http://www.thecourt.ca/2008/11/17/the-forfeiture-of-offence-related-property-craig-v-her-majesty-the-queen/comment-page-1/#comment-115330 Ron Dabor Sr. Tue, 30 Dec 2008 16:40:20 +0000 http://www.thecourt.ca/2008/11/17/the-forfeiture-of-offence-related-property-craig-v-her-majesty-the-queen/#comment-115330 We have surely slithered back before the time of the Magna Carta (1215); where different authorities benefit by stealing the property of others. Fine or imprisonment is appropriate if it fits the crime but stealing property is quite a different issue. Besides adding another incentive for authorities to side-step the law (side-step is a euphemism) it revokes a right of a person accused to remain silent but must actively prove his innocence. The Supreme Court ruled: "Pursuant to s. 19.1(3)...only then does the BURDEN SHIFT to the offender to establish that the impact of forfeiture would be disproportionate." Honourably the prosecution must be burdened with this atrocious problem-they must prove every cent that went into that dwelling or other asset was the result of proceeds from the crime not the accused. These types of legal atrocities have no effect on crime but it turns Canadians into having less civil liberties protections that Medieval serfs. But we placid Canadians have become numbed by the police acting as judge and jury or creating ill-thought out laws that revoke historic rights on the basis of misguided advocates or false statistics compiled by the benefactors. We have surely slithered back before the time of the Magna Carta (1215); where different authorities benefit by stealing the property of others. Fine or imprisonment is appropriate if it fits the crime but stealing property is quite a different issue. Besides adding another incentive for authorities to side-step the law (side-step is a euphemism) it revokes a right of a person accused to remain silent but must actively prove his innocence. The Supreme Court ruled: “Pursuant to s. 19.1(3)…only then does the BURDEN SHIFT to the offender to establish that the impact of forfeiture would be disproportionate.”
Honourably the prosecution must be burdened with this atrocious problem-they must prove every cent that went into that dwelling or other asset was the result of proceeds from the crime not the accused. These types of legal atrocities have no effect on crime but it turns Canadians into having less civil liberties protections that Medieval serfs. But we placid Canadians have become numbed by the police acting as judge and jury or creating ill-thought out laws that revoke historic rights on the basis of misguided advocates or false statistics compiled by the benefactors.

]]> By: simonprophet.com http://www.thecourt.ca/2008/11/17/the-forfeiture-of-offence-related-property-craig-v-her-majesty-the-queen/comment-page-1/#comment-107373 simonprophet.com Sun, 23 Nov 2008 13:32:42 +0000 http://www.thecourt.ca/2008/11/17/the-forfeiture-of-offence-related-property-craig-v-her-majesty-the-queen/#comment-107373 When people are convicted of crime then punish all offenders equally within the guidelines of a predetermined penalty. Forfeiture creates disturbing imbalances when attaching punishment to crime. Criminals who have assets are treated very differently to criminals who have nothing. Forfeiture targets assets not criminals and it does not prevent crime. Did the forfeiture of Prophet's home (http://www.simonprophet.com.) send out a clear message to drug gangsters? Police statistics in South Africa indicate that the civil forfeiture of his home actually promoted the particular drug crime of which he was accused by a staggering 7 500% increase within 4 years. When people are convicted of crime then punish all offenders equally within the guidelines of a predetermined penalty.

Forfeiture creates disturbing imbalances when attaching punishment to crime. Criminals who have assets are treated very differently to criminals who have nothing. Forfeiture targets assets not criminals and it does not prevent crime.

Did the forfeiture of Prophet’s home (http://www.simonprophet.com.) send out a clear message to drug gangsters?

Police statistics in South Africa indicate that the civil forfeiture of his home actually promoted the particular drug crime of which he was accused by a staggering 7 500% increase within 4 years.

]]>