"Lord Archer, for the crime of perjury you are condemned to four years, by which I mean two, in a seaside penitentiary known as 'the holiday camp' throughout the system, and from where you will be allowed to drive your BMW to the local town to lunch out with the wardens and from which will arise two inteminable best-selling tomes that will further bolster your ill-gotten gains by complainign how arduous the whole thing was, honest guv'nor."

vs

"Lord Archer, you shall be sent hence forth from this place to another place, from whence you shall be dispatched to an ATM, and therin shall deposit your entire fortune at Her Majesty's pleasure, and may God have mercy on your bankrupt soul, you bankrupt soul."

Know which one gets my vote!

And if Lord Archer was in any way representative of the average felon then I might be tempted to agree with you.

As I understand them, the asset forfeiture laws in this country set dangerous precedents.

Should a convicted criminal derive any benefit from his or her crimes? No, certainly not (and if only this could be used to stop Archer writing his wretched prose then the world would be a better place).

More than that, where there is an injured third party seeking recompense or where the crime committed carries financial penalties, existing assets of the felon should be considered forfeit until the necessary amount has been realized.

However, as things stand, this law represents a significant departure from the usual burden of proof. Where the Crown orders assets forfeit, it is the obligation of the accused to demonstrate that they are not the fruits of crimes as yet untried and unproven.

It was introduced by Thatcher's government in 1986 (shame on you Byron) and was restricted in scope to those convicted of Drug Trafficking with assets over £10,000.

It was justified because the war against drugs was deemed so important that a limited derogation from Common Law was justified.

Since then, its scope has been extended to cover anyone convicted of any crime and with assets of any value.

Even better, the Crown can request the freezing of assets of one suspected but not convicted of a crime. It is then the obligation of the individual to prove that the assets are rightly theirs without ever being charged, tried or convicted of any crime.

A good idea? I think not.

Most people are probabl tinking "this isnt me, i'd never commit a crimesi it doesnt bother me."

But if you've ever brought a substancial amount of alcohol or tobacco back from abroad, say on a booz cruze, they can take your car!

Even if it's all for personal use, even if you have never committred a crime before in your life!

And before you have a chance to say "Human rights," your car will be sold and the money in the customs and excise coffers!

Chances are, too, that you'll never get a day in court to clear your good name (and seek compensation once cleared) because they hardly ever charge the people who's cars they take!

Bit closer to home now, hey?

My post was just approving of the principal in certain cases post conviction.

Needless to say, siezing anything without a conviction is just not on.

Though I must say, is this really a post by Cat where the words "human rights" are being used in a non-sarcastic fashion?

---

by Byron
Though I must say, is this really a post by Cat where the words "human rights" are being used in a non-sarcastic fashion?

---

Only 'cos they persicute the innocent. I dont much care what they do to criminals. human rights come with human responsibilities. those who are responsible are being punished unfairly.

Human rights come with being human.

---

by Incandenza
Human rights come with being human.

---

I normally have mine with chips


(Edited by Sange 13/08/2003 09:57)

---

by Cat
(quotes)

Only 'cos they persicute the innocent. I dont much care what they do to criminals. human rights come with human responsibilities. those who are responsible are being punished unfairly.

---

Think we've just found Oliver Letwin's replacement!

---

by Incandenza
Human rights come with being human.

---

Right. So cold blooded killers deserve not to be "caged" Rapists dont deserve to be seperated from the people they atack, and theives deserve to live off law abiding tax payers who WORK for theit money!

Heaven forbid! Puishing killers, locking rapists up, keeping benifits back from theives is SO totally wrong!

Working for your own money, not stealing it and living off benifits! What evil belifes i have!

I have been living a shamefull life! Save me Inc. Show me how your "everyone deserves rights" argument works. 'cos it surely doesnt seem to work in the UK.

How many amercian Ex pats do you know? In the UK i knew 7 seperate families who emigrqted, just in my circle of friends!!!!!!!!!

Over here i know 1 americna ex pat, but she grew up in the UK.

The UK system has them leaving in droves!

if that system works, i'm Red Ken.

---

by Red Ken
Right. So cold blooded killers deserve not to be "caged" Rapists dont deserve to be seperated from the people they atack, and theives deserve to live off law abiding tax payers who WORK for theit money!

Heaven forbid! Puishing killers, locking rapists up, keeping benifits back from theives is SO totally wrong!

---

Oh Good Lord! I read the same post you did and I didn't see him using any of those phrases, nor did I see him indicate the same

---

by Red Ken
Save me Inc. Show me how your "everyone deserves rights" argument works.

---

Without meaning to sound too rude, could you show me how any of your recent arguments in any thread work?

Maybe I'm being foolish, but you're hardly following your own thoughts to logical conclusions in order to prove your point. In some cases (such as this one), you're actually belittling your own argument by resorting to ridiculous statements and no less than 14 exclamation marks.

Add could someone please stop the madness, 'cos I agree with Inc too.

I sure this topic was about something else when I started reading. Can someone please help me to the exit....

---

by Cat
Right. So cold blooded killers deserve not to be "caged"... [and so on]

---

IÂ’ve noticed that it is much easier to argue with people if you ignore their actual opinions and insert words into their mouth.

As you may recall from the Tony Martin discussion, I was specifically arguing that cold-blooded killers should be jailed (caged is slightly too harsh a description for my taste).

Anyway, for the sake of argument, lets accept that the first three paragraphs bear no resemblance to anything I have ever said, set them aside and move on.

Since thereÂ’s no argument flowing through the rest of your post, IÂ’ll take it paragraph by paragraph.

Everyone deserves rightsÂ… again, not what I said but in any caseÂ…

How does the argument work? It works because it starts from the assumption that all human beings are born equal. ItÂ’s an argument routed in concepts of compassion, empathy and fairness.

It works because I recognise that I have more similarities with any other human being than I will ever have differences, and that there but for the grace of fortune go I.

If you are interested, this is a link to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations.

I donÂ’t really understand what you mean by it not working in the United Kingdom.

---

How many amercian Ex pats do you know? In the UK i knew 7 seperate families who emigrqted, just in my circle of friends [!x9]

Over here i know 1 americna ex pat, but she grew up in the UK.

The UK system has them leaving in droves!

---

Leaving aside for a moment the statistical irrelevance that is a sample based on your empirical experienceÂ…

I canÂ’t make sense of this. You knew 7 American ex-pats when you lived in the United Kingdom? People who had left America to come to the UKÂ…

In Spain, you only know one person who has left America to live there. That person used to live in the United Kingdom.

This proves that the UK system doesnÂ’t work and that people are leaving in droves?

Am I just missing the point of some particularly obtuse sarcasm?

As for your evil beliefs and shameful life, thatÂ’s between you and your conscience.

Is Cat a real person? Or just a made-up character who's being used to get some debates going?

---

by Avenger
Is Cat a real person? Or just a made-up character who's being used to get some debates going?

---

Real

---

by Stoo
(quotes)

Real

---

I didn't even know the piccys were there

I think what Cat was trying to say is that she knows 7 families who have left the UK and only one American living abroad. True, it seems that fewer Americans leave their country of birth - but then again, they have the whole world to chose from, so it's possible they move around just as much, just not to here.

I too know a few people who are leaving the country - or, like Cat, have already left. However, I doubt that there is any one deciding factor.

The rising cost of living here, coupled with (if you believe the media) the slow collapse of everything from the Health Service to public transport is probably more to blame than a few dubious decisions from the Judiciary.

On the human rights point - yes, it would appear that cold-blooded killers and rapists etc. have not behaved as human beings - but rights are just that. The right to be treated as a human being is not something that is earned. It is inherant to all people in "civilised" countries, regardless of their actions. Even if we were to re-assume the death penalty for some crimes, executions were, and would continue to be humane. As Cat says - there are few people who can say that they have never committed any sort of crime - however small. We would not expect to be treated as a lesser being on the strenth of that.

So - seizing assets from criminals whose assets are illegally gained or are connected with crime - Yes.

Treating human beings on a sliding scale of humanity based on their actions - No.

(Edited by Kate 15/08/2003 11:01)

I love it when you get all serious Kate.......grrrrrrrrrrrowl

aww shucks ma'am - it weren't nothin' *kicks ground*

Nice to see a post free of personal attacks.

Comments like 'Human rights come with being human', if taken in isolation, can easily be read to mean that all humans have the right to the same protections. In fact, taken literally, that's what it means. Further, no one wants to be locked up, or to be forced to hand over their assets. So if all humans have the same rights, then we shouldn't imprison anyone, including murderers and the like.

Which I believe was Cat's point.

Now, the problem here to my mind is that no one says that there is a right not to be imprisoned. There is a right against wrongful imprisonment, but that's quite different. There is no human right that says you are allowed to keep hold of any wealth illegally gained, but there is a human right to not have that which is lawfully yours removed.

The problem here, to my mind, is one of misunderstanding due a misunderstanding of what those commonly held human rights are. It is not to say we all can do as we please, but that we should be free from the persecution of others.

And the argument that we cannot have rights without responsibilities misses the point of those human rights, from my perspective. For those responsibilities are inherent in those rights. Just as I am free to express myself and live my life as I choose, so I am responsible for making sure I do not impinge on everyone else's rights. If I do then society will seek to remove me - but in a humane manner.

Which is all so tangential, but hopefully free of ad hominem attacks. There's no need to make this all so personal. Differences of opinion should be cherished, not attacked, so long as both sides hold those views but respect the right of others to hold different ones. Which sounds like one of those human rights, to me.

As for the actual subject matter, I hadn't heard about this and am grateful for this thread educating me on it. Basically, to agree with those above on this matter, the removal of assets of those proven to have committed a crime is clearly acceptable. Although I would add only to a degree that is in holding with the profit made from the crime, or is reasonable as recompense for the crime, and does not stop a criminal from becoming a reformed criminal.

The removal of assets due to the suspicion of crime without the conviction of a court and jury, however, is immoral and against those human rights we've mentioned so much. In my opinion.