Jack Smith wrote:

> As a civil case, many of the rights and restrictions that govern 
> criminal cases do not apply--"things" don't have civil rights; only 
> people do.
> 
> One major difference is the standard of proof. In a criminal case, the 
> guilty standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" but in a civil case, all 
> it takes for one side to win is the "preponderance of evidence." When 
> you study law, the civil standard is often described as 50% plus the 
> weight of a feather on one side or the other.

Which basically seems to mean that (at least in the US) people don't have a
right against seizure without being (criminally) guilty of any wrongdoing.

Is this correct? Anybody knows how this is handled in other countries? I
always was under the (obviously innocent) impression that for the
government (any democratic government) to be able to seize anything from
me, I have to be guilty (beyond reasonable doubt) of /something/.

Gerhard

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist