On Target

ASSET SEIZURES WITHOUT CONVICTIONS ARE WRONG

This is regarding Wayne Reynolds' March 22 reply to The Gazette's March 20
Our View, "Spoils of war" ("Gazette's arguments against asset forfeiture
show flawed thinking," Letters). Reynolds claimed The Gazette is seriously
flawed in its position that property seizure should not be allowed unless
an arrest led to a conviction. Funny, I thought that was one of strongest
points made in the original column.

Like it or not, we still live in a country where the accused are innocent
until proven guilty, regardless of the inequities in the system. Penalties,
to include asset seizures/forfeitures, should follow convictions, not
precede them. The Gazette provided many good reasons why this is a bad
policy, and it needs to change.

A few years ago, in his noble but overzealous attempt to curb drunk driving
in New York, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani proposed seizure of automobiles
belonging to drivers charged with an alcohol-related offenses, regardless
of the outcome of the trial. That sort of mindset is similar the asset
seizure law at hand. It puts too much power in the hands of law
enforcement, is arguably unconstitutional, and it's wrong.

Don Powers

Colorado Springs