HIT DRUG DEALERS WHERE IT HURTS

Recently I was watching SBS television and the subject was the problem
of the drug trade in Colombia. One aspect was the confiscation of
property, houses etc from drug warlords, followed by a subsequent
court hearing where the warlord is expected to prove "legitimate" ownership.

I believe the process is called a "reverse onus" prosecution and is
already used in Victoria for such offences as suspected illegal
ownership of property. Why couldn't such a system be implemented for
drug dealers?

The prosecution, as I understand it, would present a case that must
satisfy a magistrate to a balance of probabilities: that is, it is
proven that there is a strong possibility that the person so accused
is in fact dealing in drugs.

The accused then would, having heard the allegation(s), have the right
to rebut, with any benefit of the doubt being shown to the accused.

Such a method would allow law-enforcement agencies to present to the
courts those whom they already strongly suspect, and have sufficient
evidence to meet the above criteria, thus giving value to the
investigative dollar as well as showing "zero tolerance" to those who
are making massive profits out of the misery from the scourge of our
time.

DAVID WRIGHT,
East Keilor