Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (14998)	3/24/2006 4:13:03 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 540888

I mean crime. Like "go to jail" crime, depending on the facts. Improper entry all by itself is a civil offense, but illegal re-entry after being deported is a felony, and so is making false statements on an application. Improper hiring can become a criminal offense if there's a pattern of illegal activity, otherwise civil. My impression is that the people who go to jail these days are the smugglers, the ones who help them get into the country. Also, people who arrange sham marriages.

To: Lane3 who wrote (14998)	3/30/2006 11:25:50 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 540888

As a term of art a "civil offense" is not a crime. But it is treated by the law as if it was a minor crime. You are forced to pay a fine, you face legal penalty. The benefit to the government of considering it to be "not a crime", is that they can impose penalties with a lower burden of proof. -- Most traffic violations in the State of Arizona are referred to as “civil traffic” violations. Prior to the early 1980's, all traffic violations were designated as “criminal violations”, meaning that the charges were either misdemeanors or petty offenses with a possible jail sentence and/or fines, and the person cited had all the rights which are attached to all criminal charges, including the right to a trial, the presumption of innocence and the right to counsel. In the early 1980's the legislature changed most traffic violations (except very serious ones) into “civil” traffic violations. This substantially changed most aspects of these charges. Some of the changes include: * The initial plea was changed to “responsible or not responsible” in a civil traffic matter, from “guilty or not-guilty” in a criminal proceeding. * The penalty imposed is now referred to as a “sanction” and the term fine was dropped. * In a civil traffic case, if the defendant fails to appear for his/her initial appearance or to attend the civil traffic hearing, a judgment is entered against him/her and his/her driver’s license is suspended until the sanction and late fees are paid. * The right to a trial in a criminal matter was replaced with the right to a civil traffic hearing. * The State is no longer required to send attorneys to prosecute civil traffic cases unless the defendant has an attorney. * * The State’s burden of proof at the hearing went from the heavy burden in a criminal case of “beyond a reasonable doubt” to the same burden as in any civil case of “by preponderance of the evidence”(the State only need prove its version of the facts is more likely true than not). * The formal rules of evidence were eliminated from these hearings. ci.oro-valley.az.us -- When a property owner goes to federal court to challenge the seizure of property under a federal civil forfeiture law, the government is required to make an initial showing of probable cause that the property is subject to forfeiture. Under current law, the property owner must then establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the property is not subject to forfeiture. 46 [Footnote] The government can meet its burden without having obtained a criminal conviction or even having charged the owner with a crime. Since the government doesn't need the proof beyond a reasonable doubt required for a criminal conviction, even the acquittal of the owner does not bar forfeiture of the property allegedly used in a crime. The probable cause the government needs is the lowest standard of proof in the criminal law. It is the same standard required to obtain a search warrant and can be established by evidence with a low indicia of reliability such as hearsay. thomas.loc.gov; --