archmichael You really need to focus on the case at hand. In drug forfeiture, it’s assumed that part of the assets were purchased with the profits of the activity and therefor “profit”.
Ms. Rader’s assets had nothing to do with the commission of her husband’s crimes.
So, is the house he owned with his wife “murder proceeds”? If not, how are the two scenarios similar?
I agree with you that it is a different case. Items bought with illegal profit streams and what not. But they always fall back to “It’s her money. She didn’t do anything” as if that is some kind of legal protection. Many people lose their quality of life through the illegal or stupid actions of their spouse. “My money and I didn’t do anything wrong” doesn’t protect them from asset seizure. It’s an extraordinary case in that we have
Hakuna Matata (who has not irritated them as far as I know) reasked my drunk driver hypothetical to all three of them. All have ignored him. Maybe if they can answer the kingpin question we can see how clearly theyre thinking?
Well I wouldn’t go that far. I think that you and the rest of the people here aren’t talking to each other–you are all talking to yourselves and past each other! I can see both sides of the question here–but it doesn’t appear to me that either side is listening to the other.
I fully recongize the stance advocated by TYM and Miller and MsRobyn–hell I agree with it on an emotional level. I agree that in this case dividing half the money and dividing it among the victims is a meaningless act and helps no one–so I am in 100% agreement with them on this particular case. And that I think is the stance they are taking–THIS particular case it doesn’t make sense because it is such a paltry sum.
However I do think that you hypothetical raises an interesting point. The concept of a drunk driver killing the husband and his widow getting nothing because the judge has awarded all the assets to the drunk guys wife is a bit unsettling to me. In theory this is what your point is–except that here we have many widows (read-families) and the drunk is a serial killer.
Would be nice if one of those lawyerly types that hang out here would pop in with their view on this. Just saying 
It is a legal protection in this case. That’s why the others are giving you a hard time with your examples. They are irrelevent to the case at hand. Your objections should focus on the case at hand, as your examples don’t apply.
Take your drunk driving example. I was in accident and the attorney told me, that it’s rare to go directly after the person driving, as their insurance coverage is usually more than their actual assets. The only time they go after the persons’ assets, is if they have a shitload of money and the injury is sustantial.
Your example doesn’t follow how such an event would really unfold. In your example Ms. Rader STILLS gets the assets, and the insurance company pays out.
I trust you’re judgement so I’l l go ahead and bow out then. Have work I should have done anyways. 
But about the meaningless act thing, I think it’s more important than you think. Charging him with three murders probably would have got him a life sentence anyways. So some would say that the other 7 seven murder charges were meaningless acts as well. But I’m sure if other murders can be attributed to the BTK killer, meaningless as it is to someone already in prison for life, it will be a sense of closure for the victims families.
I would guess some people don’t want a cent from that guy. But some apparently do, and if some families need it to get a sense of closure, I can’t see how you can say no to them with a clear conscience.
Later
Oh, fuck yeah, I decry drug forfeiture laws! American drug law is an abortion, and needs to be rooted out of our jurisprudence system root and bough. But that’s an entirely seperate issue.
Actually, the additional counts are important, as they affect things like early parole. If Rader had been sentenced to only one life term, he might have been eligible for release at some point. As it is, with ten (IIRC) life sentences, I don’t believe it is possible for him to ever get up in front of a parole board.
Obviously, we are all kind of talking past each other, but I’ll give it one more go.
What I don’t like about the pro-Paula arguments is that they seem to focus so tightly on the particulars of the case, without regard to the generic case that law is built on. What is being proposed as the only fair way to handle it would seemingly cripple our tort system. I can’t imagine that people would really want our system to be in favor of uncontested instant divorces sheilding assets from active lawsuits against one of the spouses. The potential for abuse is astounding, yet it’s presented as being the only reasonable option. It’s presented as being the way our laws work, and I don’t think that’s right, though I can’t prove it, not being a legal eagle.
I’m assuming that “instant divorces” like the one in question are exceedingly rare, and only granted in exceptional circumstances such as, say, finding out that your husband is one of the most notorious and sadistic serial killers of the last fifty years. I don’t see it happening if the husband is a drunk driver, or bank robber, or other garden variety criminal.
Feel free to take “instant” out of the argument, I think the concept is still valid. You can get a regular uncontested divorce out of the way, and assets transferred, between the time you file and the time the suit is complete, especially if your lawyer throws a roadblock or two into the tort. The assets you had when the suit was filed are all now off limits, and the plaintiff can’t get a dime. Seems bizarre to me that this would be the way our system works.