Ironically, following my  calm and deliberate discussion of the sort of conduct of the people one can expect from those who choose to live is houses that are “really big and butt ugly,” the government has taken it one step further.  Following the slavery conviction of the Sabhanis (that would be the Muttontown Sabhanis), the government has not obtained a verdict of forfeiture for their Manse, per this Newsday story.

Why, you ask?  Is this some form of punishment on top of the long prison sentence that must surely be imposed?  No, Virginia, there is no Santa Claus.  You see, forfeiture is not punitive, so sayeth the Law.  It is merely because the house is the “instrumentality” of the crime, and as such, is forfeited to the King government.  Freeze, or I shoot you with the house.

Forfeiture is predicated on the legal fiction that the “res”, the “thing”, offends the sovereign.  So it isn’t a punishment of the person, even though we all know that it means that very important slaveowners who live in the house lose it, together with their investment in it, as if it were a few million dollar fine.  As you should be able to discern from my language, I am extremely ambivalent in this particular instance, but despite my feelings about what the Sabhanis were convicted of doing, still refuse to sanction forfeiture as a cure.

The logic of forfeiture is in its utter lack of reason.  By pretending that “things” can do wrong, we find a totally new way to punish people (who don’t exist in forfeitureland) without having to give them any of those nasty rights that would otherwise be required.  People have rights.  Things are just . . . things.  Like slaves, I guess.  Alright, I digress.

In this particular instance, the big, ugly house was not the instrumentality of slavery.  It’s just a house.  Big and ugly, but only a house.  Houses don’t cause people to be enslaved.  Houses don’t physically abuse women.  Houses are just houses. 

Punish the Sabhanis according to law, legitimate sentencing objectives and sound discretion.  It that includes a financial penalty, then impose it at the time of sentence.  If the payment of the financial penalty requires the Sabhanis to sell their house (not to mention whatever else they possess), so be it.  But don’t take the house because it is the “instrumentality of the crime,”  any more than the airplane that flew the women over to from Indonesia to Muttontown was the instrumentality of the crime, or the supermarket that sold the food that the women cooked for Varsha Sabhani was the instrumentality of the crime. 

Punishment is warranted. But be honest and call it what it is.  Stop hiding behind forfeitures to mask the punishment the government wants to inflict and circumvent the judge’s imposition of sentence.