Reply #54: Depends where you live

[mulethree]

I know neighborhoods where theres no such thing as 'free from unreasonable search and seizure'. Where 'reasonable' is defined by individual police officers whose training seems anything but reasonable. Likewise there are many seizure laws that define 'reasonable' as merely 'suspicion' without any evidence or proof. Imagine having your car seized because it was used in a crime though you were never convicted or even indicted?

These laws only seem to exist or be enforced when the 'victim' of the seizure is unlikely to be able to afford legal recourse. Is there or should there be some equal right to justice? We seem to only get as much justice as we can afford.

In other areas the laws are more reasonable but are relaxed for cases of 'known offenders'. So having a prior conviction makes many things 'reasonable' which would not be reasonable for someone without prior convictions.

This particular guy who evades child support should be allowed freedom of reproduction? Yet in many places a felon cannot adopt or have a foster-child, even if his crime has nothing to do with his conduct toward children. So we can blanket-statement say we won't entrust kids to people, but we won't deny anyone a right to make his own babies even when the crime specifically relates to endangering children?

Here's a interesting report though I wish it contained more detail.
http://www.lac.org/lac/index.php