Hacker Timesnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Or go a step farther: any asset seized (including money) must be publicly destroyed. Set fire to the defendant's pile of cash in the town square, while everyone watches.

This would remove the financial incentive for seizure and would preserve its punitive aspect, both general and specific deterrence. As a check against wanton destruction, the seizing entity should remain subject to a civil cause of action of conversion (in regular language, liable for taking stuff) in case the defendant (or now plaintiff) can prove that the seizure didn't follow due process, or that the underlying justification for seizure in the first place was unfounded.

Obviously, this suggestion isn't fully baked. But it's worth considering why anyone should benefit from punitive measures such as asset seizure (or punitive damages in a civil lawsuit).



This seems worse. At least today I have a small chance of getting my item returned. The reality is, just don't sieze. It sieze AFTER the trial and conviction.


Or auctioned with the proceeds going towards a small UBI check.


Would be a shame to burn a Rembrandt.


In this scenario, the circumstances that would lead to burning a Rembrandt would be quite extreme. The convicted criminal would have to use the Rembrandt in crime and the punishment would have to be a fine in excess of the value of the Rembrandt.

But besides that: Just because it would be a "shame," doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. After all, some people think it would be fun to burn a Rembrandt.




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: