http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a..._capped_teeth_2
. The above article was absolutely sickening to read. Government lawyers were dragging 2 drug suspects to the dentist to get their gold teeth caps removed when a Federal Judge got wind of it and ordered the men be brought back to jail. I'm opposed to the Asset Forfeiture laws because the Government can seize assets from a suspect without proving to a Jury that a crime has been committed. But the Government must be desperate for cash if they are going so far as to pluck out golden teeth caps, not to mention violation of the 8th Amendment which prohibits Cruel and Unusual Punishment. The most sickening part was the article was that some of the readers proposed using baseball bats on the drug dealers.

For the Debate,
Should the Government be allowed to seize assets from suspects without proving the suspect guilty?
Should the Government under any condition be allowed to seize any body part from a criminal?

I'm locked out of Yahoo News, so I can't read the story. Is there another source for it? I'm not doubting your word at all, but this sounds so insane that I'd like to be able to see the details for myself.

I have never been in favor of the seizing of assets from any unconvicted suspect. Frankly, that whole system stinks of sheer greed on the part of law enforcement. Unfortunately, the continuing frenzy of the War on Drugs allows this kind of nonsense to go on all the time, with little protest.

I'm not sure if a gold tooth counts as a "body part," but I am in total agreement with you that this is an absolutely grotesque abuse of government power. Even if we accept the premise that the seizing of assets from suspects is acceptable (which I do not), clearly this should not extent to items which serve a medical purpose. Even if the gold teeth are purely decorative (as I said, I cannot read the story), removing them would place an extraordinary burden on someone who has not yet been convicted of a crime.

As a side note, don't law enforcement agents realize how bad this looks? Even if they thought they had the right to do this, didn't they realize that they make themselves look like the worst kind of jackbooted thugs?

I don't think you realize what these things are. They are called "grills', and they are removeable tooth gaps that gang members buy. Example on e bay. They are as seizable as any necklace or other jewelry would be. Nothing cruel or unusual here, and I'm a bit surprised anyone in custody would be permitted to keep such items in their mouth while incarcerated anyway.

Mrs P, are you absolutely SURE of what you are saying? These men are suspects charged, not convicted! Gold teeth grills are a cultural statement, and not necessarily gang statements. Ive seen many Latinos that were not gang members with gold teeth. Some are as caps, nonremovable, but what are we talking about anyway? Removing peoples caps while 'accused'? Who cares if they are as large as jewelry?

Do we still hold to innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and subject to trial? Taking people to a dentist to remove their assests? Does that include white people with gold fillings?

Should the Government be allowed to seize assets from suspects without proving the suspect guilty? I believe that may fall under illegal search and seizure which Ive thought has gone too far already, such as impounding cars etc.

No.

Should the Government under any condition be allowed to seize any body part from a criminal?
No.

The article states that they are grills, so if the article is correct than yes they are removeable. When a person is accused of a crime, they are required to fund a defense. If they don't have the money the state pays (which means everyone else). Which should be spent first... the money of the accused, or everyone else's?

Ok, so I imagine your wedding and engagement ring should be pawned for your defense? even if you are only accused? How about your heirloom jewelry?

Nothing was said about not having money for a defense. It was seizure of assets. Even if you do not have the money for a defense, taking you to a dentist to remove gold from your mouth does not count as assets, by no means.

Mrs P. rarely do I see such a rascist view from you, this is clearly a case of cultural bigotry.

Uh- clarification- the article clearly says they are permanently bonded Mrs P

I think forfieture laws are an abomination anyway- really, what kind of justice system do we have when we allow the goverment to seize belongings BEFORE due proccess has taken it's course?

I notice that we do not sieze all the assets of the Libby's, the Ken Lays etc- why do we do it to the drug dealer?

If we are to have confiscation laws- it should only deal with fraud IMHO- like Securities fraud or wrongdoing of that nature.

IF I don't have the means to fund a defense, yes. My engagement ring, wedding ect will be pawned. There is nothing racist about this view whatsoever. Race is completely irrelevant here. A Catholic gold cross could be confiscated too. Sorry, it's unfortunate but frankly I would rather pawn my own engagement ring before I'd expect others to fund my defense.

Attached with adhesive, CR. They aren't part of the tooth. And I wasn't aware that Libby or Lay didn't fund their own defense. Did their lawyers work for free?

Edited to add: Oh, yes. I see you were right CR it states " they mistakenly thought the grills were removable." Once they realized they weren't the process stopped. They aren't trying to remove fillings and caps here.

This was seisure of assets, from someones mouth. Defense was not even implicated. I dont believe you are being honest here.

Surely, they wont have a dime for their defense if all assets including gold from their teeth, removed by dentist is done beforehand. Surely a 'fair' system!

Edited to ADD:


Libby and Lay didnt have their assets siezed, as well they should have, then we'd be pulling gold fillings from their mouths.

Mrs P! No defense was implicated! It was seisure of assests upon charge, do you understand that?

The assets are taken to pay for legal fees, yes? The accused (or someone else) must pay for legal fees, true? We aren't talking about removing gold fillings, real caps, or teeth. Now who isn't being honest here?

See above.
Mrs P, then why werent Libby's and Lays assets seized and a dentist looking in their mouths, Come on! This is absurd! I cant believe you are defending this, and the taking of wedding rings as defense collateral, what the hell?



No, YOU would not have the chance to pawn your own stuff to fund your defense, it would already have been siezed! You see, 'confiscated', and pawned are two different situations. Then lets talk about rooting out your gold teeth, taking your wedding rings because you have been 'charged' not because you are convicted and sentanced but because you are 'charged' and they are assets upon which you might have gained illegally, therefore are not yours to use in your own defense.

How does that grab you, with a dentist in your mouth? That is presumption of guilt, and illegal search and seizure.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding things, because from my point of view this is so self evident and obvious I'm surprised at the response here. First, the grills were assumed to be removeable (similar to jewelry). When it was discovered that they were not, there was no longer a question of removing them.

Next, even the accused have to fund a defense before they are formally charged. Lawyers do not
work for free either way SOMEONE is going to pay.

Finally, Libby and whoeverelse have to pay their legal costs, too. If they don't have the means their assets, too, would be seized.

Should the Government be allowed to seize assets from suspects without proving the suspect guilty?

It is unfortunate that this question needs to be asked in America. Asset seizure is not what this country is supposed to be about. I am sorry we are such chickens as to let drug dealers take away this fundamental principle. The mentality has extended to seizing private property for commercial use, but at least people have been aware enough to fight back.

Should the Government under any condition be allowed to seize any body part from a criminal?

No, it's too much like Nazi Germany melting down the teeth of victims. Gold isn't that valuable anyway. Looks like humiliation to me.

Hey, maybe kidneys will be next.

And Mrs. P, you're stretching it. Nobody should want your wedding ring under any circumstance, and it is simply wrong for the government to demand it. I think this is why people die for the American idea known as the Constitution.

The war on drugs is another issue, but look what the mentality has justified. It's pretty disgusting.

Mrs P- I am a bit confused here- are you saying forfeiture laws are to help pay for the defense of the accused? Because that IS NOT where the money goes- it goes right into the city budget in most cases:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/forfeiture/

The Representatives were concerned about the problem of police using seized property or funds to finance their own operations. As Bob Barr (R-Ga.) put it, "In many jurisdictions, it has become a monetary tail wagging the law enforcement dog." Testifying before the Judiciary Committee, Willie Jones of Nashville, TN, gave an example of this abuse. Engaged in the landscaping business, Mr. Jones planned to buy a shrubbery in Houston, TX. Nurseries prefer cash from out-of-town buyers, so Mr. Jones planned to go there with $9,000 in cash. Officers detained him at the airport: suspicious of the large amount of cash, they accused him of being involved in drug-related activities.

As far as I can tell, the opposite is true- they don't want the money to be used to defend the accused at all- but to prevent it from being paid to high priced lawyers.

Ah! Yep. That's what I thought it was, CR. Sorry. Thanks for the correction.

You are kidding right? Mrs P, if you are 'charged' with a drug crime, the state takes everything you own, immediately, and they are trying to say that taking gold from peoples mouths is legal siezure, I think that goes too far.
It doesnt go to your defense, it goes to the IRS. You are then either responsible for your own defense or the state must take your case.

Its NOT Libby or Ken Lay, or any corporate hacks, its blacks and latinos that have gold teeth. It is specific and ludicrous, if not NAZI and racist. It has nothing to do with defense, because all big drug dealers will have great defense lawyers, and money to do it, its culturaL BIAS, ITS RACISM.

Reading CR's Post I have to agree , but he skirted the issue entirely and in my opinion 'whited it down' to make it more palatable. When whites have their mouth opened up to dig out their gold fillings, you might see a comparison, gold is going for almost $600 an ounce today.

Mrs. Pigpen, you brought up an interesting point about the seized assets being used to pay for the legal defense of the defendants. This is another thing that disagree with the Legal System on.

If some jackal sues me over something frivolous and loses the case, I want that Jackal to pay for my legal defense. If that Jackal turns out to be the District Attorney, better known as "The People", then yes "The People" should pay for the Legal Defense of an innocent person. In our Court System, we have a way of making guilty people pay for the Legal Process. It is called a "Fine" and the "Fine" is payed AFTER the Jury sits down and finds the defendent guilty.

The interesting part of this debate is how the 'state" seperates the civil and criminal procceedings, but, yet, they are one in the same.

You see, forfieture has been deemed legal because the property is presumed to have been an accesory to the crime- so they are able to circumvent due proccess this way.

Now- Mrs P - not picking on you- but hey, you picked this thread LOL- how in the world did the "grill" help commit the crime?

Forfeture laws are very, very bad, and yes, they are overwhelmingly racist. I don't like to throw that word out in most criminal cases, because hey, best way not to get into trouble is not to commit crimes, right? -

but, these are overwhelmingly used against non-whites, non- waspy types.

However, greed knows no color, and it, like everything govermental and money oriented, is finally starting to really creep into white suburbs, and folks will protest when white poeple rights start getting violated too!


But, Artemise is generally right- they aren't prying white folks mouths open and taking out thier gold fillings now are they?

Should the Government be allowed to seize assets from suspects without proving the suspect guilty?

Nope, never, nada, in no way, unless it is fraud money, like with rich white guys in three piece suits.

Dave Chappelles' skit on this was probably the best answer in this debate, ever. When he switched the Crack cocaine dealer role and the Embezzler role, where the state tramples all over the constitution, shoots the dog, feels up the embezzlers wife, and provides him with an overworked and overpaid public defender, and leaves his butt in jail until trial, where the judge doesn't even have a modicum of partiality about it, and can't wait to throw this "scumbag" in jail, and all black poeple on the jury, while the cocaine dealer made an appointment for his arrest, agreed not to sell crack anymore (wink wink) and make a sizable campaign donation to the judge and every white republican he could find, and goes back out deals crack again.

The Ken Lay's are a million times more damaging to the US, and has far more victims, than the crack cocaine dealers, but, they don't have such good lobbyists and publicists, so they don't get the same sympathy from white america. - but that is how rights really do get into the 'slippery slope" issue- you take the rights first from those that are so easy to dislike, and then start into the everyday mainstream citizen.

This is also why I say that the Republican party is the single most damaging to freedom anti- american organization we have ever had- and not in a tongue and cheek manner. It is because so many knee jerk types run to the "securty" banner when we have a problem, and it ends up, no matter what the good intentions, that we really have an abuse of govermental power in the end.

The war on drugs has allowed the goverment to sieze your property without any due proccess whatsoever, and 0 protections for the innocent, and 0 recompensation for damage when the goverment overstepps it's boundries. this is far more dangerous to actual freedom than spotted owls or whale lovers or whatever.

And now we have the "war on terror" to further erode our rights as well- because we don't care about our rights anymore, only about a 1 in a freakin' trillion chance we could get hit by a terrorist attack!

It is a very, very bad thing forfieture without due proccess- and it boggles my mind, that the very people that are against big goverment and eminent domain- are okay with this little right's killing practice we have now, and trust the goverment to do the right thing, every time, without any oversight?

Should the Government under any condition be allowed to seize any body part from a criminal?

A grill is not a body part- it is a prosthesis- and yes, the goverment, under certain conditions, should be able to sieze some prosthesis- since you said any condition- not "in the light of forfeiture and selling the prosthesis to make a profit"- but I have taken away prosthesis from patients myself that were easy to make into weapons, are, more accurately, had already been used as weapons and modified to be weapons.

I agree. THe drug forfeiture laws are some scary stuff. There was a movie that portrayed some local cops as drooling over some guys boat, so they planted drugs on him to get the boat through forfeiture laws.

I think forfeiture should be done through civil courts, not criminal court.

Any time the gov't can make a profit on busting someone, that is really opening the door for bad behavior.

Now this case is even worse, taking possesions prior to a verdict is insane.

A couple of points:

Forfeiture laws are not intended as Mrs. P originally described them. They are not intended as a source of income to fund public defenders.

What they are for is so that criminals will profit as little as possible from their ill-gotten gains. Therefore, upon arrest the police will seek a warrant (as they did here) to seize private property. They carefully inventory what they take. The property is held until the trial is over. If guilty, the property may be subject to auction. If innocent, the property is returned.

There have been plenty of cases of theft and misuse of items seized in this fashion.

Second point: in this case, the prosecutors thought that the "bling" on the men's mouths was removable, as jewelry might be. Often, gold teeth of this type are. Some are not. When it was learned that these caps were permanent, the attempt to confiscate them was dismissed, as it should have been.

This is much ado about something that might have happened, but didn't. The authorities made a mistake and corrected it before anything permanent was done.

Should the Government be allowed to seize assets from suspects without proving the suspect guilty?

Yes, they should, especially in the case of drug dealers and thieves. It limits the ability to dispose of ill-gotten assets. Should the accused be found not guilty, their stuff should be returned.

Should the Government under any condition be allowed to seize any body part from a criminal?

No, they should not. My understanding is that the authorities were misinformed on this one. Upon discovering their mistake, they "ceased and desisted". Correctly so.