[ShepherdsDog]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story ... ction.html

Quote:

The 50-year-old has not been convicted of any crime and he has not filed a statement of defence in connection to the civil suit. Skavinsky remains in remand custody at a jail just outside Winnipeg.

But the fact that Skavinsky is considered innocent until proven guilty in criminal court doesn't affect the province's ability to try to take his assets, the director of the Justice ministry's criminal property and forfeiture department said Thursday.

"We're not going after the person, we're going after the property," Gord Schumacher said. "And what we're saying is this property was used in an unlawful activity."

"Who owns it is almost immaterial. It's the property itself — if it's been used as an instrument — it's the property itself that should be forfeited," Schumacher added

Now if this guy is found to be a kiddie diddler, he should be gutted with a rusty butter knife for starters. It's the parts that I have high lighted that I find somewhat unsettling. It may set a precedent for government seizures before anyone is even found guilty of a crime. What if someone is wrongfully accused?

[Unsound]

I agree. It seems the gov't is doing this kind of thing more and more often. And they seem to get away with it because no one wants to be seen defending a kiddie diddler, or a drunk driver, or whoever it is they're going after.

I'm also curious about the whole idea behind taking his house... is forfieture of property even a punishment under the law? Even if he's found guilty does that mean he loses his right to own property?

[Lemmy]

Unsound wrote:

I agree. It seems the gov't is doing this kind of thing more and more often. And they seem to get away with it because no one wants to be seen defending a kiddie diddler, or a drunk driver, or whoever it is they're going after.

I'm also curious about the whole idea behind taking his house... is forfieture of property even a punishment under the law? Even if he's found guilty does that mean he loses his right to own property?

We have what are referred to as "Enterprise Crime" laws. Essentially, if you earn your living from crime, the government can seize the proceeds of your criminal activity. If they can establish that this dude is making money off his crimes, like from kiddie porn, the government can take his stuff.

I can't envision a scenario where they could seize an impaired driver's property.

[Unsound]

They can and do seize drunk drivers cars. In the case of this alleged pedophile they are trying to take his house because it was used to commit the crime, because it gave him a place to assault the young girl.

I don't have a problem with the proceeds of crime being taken away, that basically just ensures that crime doesn't pay, but taking peoples property willy-nilly just because they've been convicted or accused of a crime strikes me as being completely wrong.

[ShepherdsDog]

he hasn't been convicted of anything yet, and the charges were he molested the girl. No mention has been made of him making and or distributing Kiddy porn to purchase the house or anything else. If convicted, then the house should be seized and sold(the butter knife scenario is enacted), with the proceeds going to the victim(s), not the Crown.

[Brenda]

Quote:

"We're not going after the person, we're going after the property," Gord Schumacher said. "And what we're saying is this property was used in an unlawful activity."

No you are not. He has not been convicted of any crime, no charges has been laid, so this property is innocent.

Schumacher, you are WAY out of line.

What do you have to do with the property? Are you going to seize my place because you think I might or might not have done something illegal that you can not or have not proven yet? That's pretty scary.

[Brenda]

ShepherdsDog wrote:

he hasn't been convicted of anything yet, and the charges were he molested the girl. No mention has been made of him making and or distributing Kiddy porn to purchase the house or anything else. If convicted, then the house should be seized and sold(the butter knife scenario is enacted), with the proceeds going to the victim(s), not the Crown.

IF there has been any profit made in that house, to pay it off. If he was "only" diddling her for his own pleasure (yes, I know, it sounds like I don't think it is a bad thing, but that is not the issue, I DO think it is a bad thing...), then there is no money made, no profit gained, and it is still his property.

If he had done it in the public library, would they seize that, sell it, and take the money?