The Conflict between Asset Forfeiture and The Right To Counsel

• Main Authors: Yung-Han Wang, 王永瀚
• Other Authors: 王皇玉
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2018
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/2tx5jm

碩士 === 國立臺灣大學 === 科際整合法律學研究所 === 106 === When it comes to the basis of public interests, the government is allowed to restrict certain human rights that are granted by the constitution. Therefore, finding a constitutionality way to limit the power of government is an important issue that all countries are facing. Asset forfeiture is one of the powers that might violate a defendant ’s right to counsel. Asset forfeiture is an act, which the government forcibly relocates certain offender’s or third parties’ property rights to their own. At the same time, a defendant needs a lawyer to assist him with the legal proceedings when facing prosecutor’s charges. Unfortunately when the court confiscated a defendant’s property, it is most likely that he doesn’t have enough assets left to hire an attorney. In short, asset forfeiture violates the defendant’s right to counsel, which is granted by the constitution. However, asset forfeiture has its legal basis, and meanwhile defendant’s right to counsel is also granted by the constitution and shouldn’t be violated. Therefore, this paper analyzes the theoretical basis and the connotation of right to counsel and asset forfeiture according to Taiwan’s law, the interpretation of the judges, and scholars’ opinions. Then integrate the opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States when in comes to the conflict between asset forfeiture and the right to counsel. This paper tries to find a standard between the two legitimacy rights, asset forfeiture and the right to counsel.