What do you think? Should more limits be placed on law enforcement officials’ ability to seize assets of suspected wrongdoers? The use of asset forfeiture has been a problem for many years, and will continue to be for the next decades. According to Neubauer and Fradella (2014), asset forfeiture is defined as the government’s ability to seize personal assets that was obtained a crime or used to commit a criminal act. The assets obtained can be a place of business, cars, cash, and etc. The issue with asset forfeiture is that it has been made too easy for law enforcement officials to seize assets that belong to innocent people, especially since civil asset forfeiture requires a low burden of proof. In my opinion, I believe that there should
From a trial strategy point of view, you always start with the piece(s) of evidence you believe are most damaging to the client's case and work backwards looking for an exploitable flaw in the search and seizure procedure that would make that or those item(s) inadmissible. The further back in the series of events you can argue a fatal flaw, the more likely that the evidence and any additional materials which flowed from that particular item of evidence will be excluded. This is the practical analysis of all the times we see or hear of law enforcement arguing that there was some technical item which drew their attention and suspicion and justifies their hunch that criminal activity is afoot.
Even though illegally seized evidence can't be used in criminal court. (Latessa & Smith, 2011). Some states permit such evidence in parole revocation cases where the standard is probable cause.
exposes many of the problems that face the Criminal Justice system, as well as reveals several
Table 2 shows that stakeholders are interested in whether civil forfeiture laws stay the same, whether citizens will obtain increased protections, or whether law enforcement’s civil forfeiture reports will become more transparent.
According to McCaw (2011), civil forfeiture has multiple benefits. One benefit of civil forfeiture is that it does not need a conviction to render a punishment (McCaw, 2011, p. 196). It allows the government to provide a lesser punishment when a criminal conviction is too harsh. For instance, if a juvenile is distributing pictures of underage classmates a prosecutor could decide to forfeit the cell phone instead of charging the juvenile with distribution of child pornography (McCaw, 2011, p. 198). This means that civil forfeitures can act as an alternative to incarceration. Specifically, it can increase revenue for the government through forfeiture funds without the cost of sending someone to prison (McCaw, 2011, p. 198). McCaw (2011) stated
The basis of criminal justice in the United States is one founded on both the rights of the individual and the democratic order of the people. Evinced through the myriad forms whereby liberty and equity marry into the mores of society to form the ethos of a people. However, these two systems of justice are rife with conflicts too. With the challenges of determining prevailing worth in public order and individual rights coming down to the best service of justice for society. Bearing a perpetual eye to their manifestations by the truth of how "the trade-off between freedom and security, so often proposed so seductively, very often leads to the loss of both" (Hitchens, 2003, para. 5).
M. (2002). Forfeiture. In J. Dressler (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 714-719). New York: Macmillan Reference USA. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.bethelu.idm.oclc.org/ps/i.do?p=GVRL&sw=w&u=tel_a_bethelc&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CCX3403000126&asid=aed93538c57de2bcd07ea576034cc631
For county jails, the problem of cost and recidivism is exacerbated by budgetary constraints and various state mandates. Due to the inability of incarceration to satisfy long-term criminal justice objectives and the very high expenditures associated with the sanction, policy makers at various levels of government have sought to identify appropriate alternatives (Luna-Firebaugh, 2003, p.51-66). I. Alternatives to incarceration give courts more options. For example, it’s ridiculous that the majority of the growth in our prison populations in this country is due to people being slamming in jail just because they were caught using drugs. So much of the crime on the streets of our country is drug-related.
al (2015), Criminal forfeiture needs at least a criminal determination for a conviction to provide for a lawful provision in depriving people of their possessions. By comparison, civil forfeiture provides for law enforcers to take possessions from people with no real criminal convictions yet or without even charges of any crime; thus, making it without effort for the government to get property and harder for civilians to oppose. From the years 1997 to 2013 it was found that only 13 percent from the Department of Justice forfeitures were criminal in nature and 87 percent were civil forfeitures. Within the civil forfeitures, 88 percent of which, have taken place administratively wherein forfeitures ensue inevitably when an owner fails to challenge the forfeiture in court for any other reason at all, even for the reason of missing the deadline to file a claim or not affording a lawyer for the trial. The forfeited property is mainly assumed to be from a guilty owner without an unbiased arbiter in as much as the form of a judge in determining whether it should be permanently withheld from the
The United States bail system was built based on a system that was created in England during the Middle Ages and has evolved since then to what we know today. It still holds flaws that should’ve been settled a long time ago. Many believe that it’s needed because criminals might be a flight risk or a threat to public safety. Although that may be true, there are many cases where it’s exploited against the poor and utilized to the sole purpose of benefiting the rich. There are many other alternatives that have been proposed to put an end to our bail system, that at the same time will save taxpayers money and put an end to our useless Money Bail System. Change is essential as humanity continues to advance forward in life, nothing stays the same
Private Property has been a focal point of the founding father since our countries inception. The right to private property has been a cornerstone of our constitutional freedom. This right limits the government’s interference to a private citizen’s property. This cornerstone serves as the foundation for the fifth amendment to our United States Constitution, which states, “No person shall be deprived of… property, without due process of law.” This amendment has been dubbed the “Taking Clause” that protects citizens from unreasonable government confiscation of private property.
Money laundering is the process by which criminals disguise the original ownership and control of the proceeds of criminal conduct by making such proceeds appear to have derived from a legitimate source. This illegal activities were predominant in developing countries such as India,
What happens to the assets once they are successfully forfeitured? The answer is as complicated as the cases themselves. Zach Glenn (2016) with The Record Herald highlights the impact of state legislation in such matters:
Money laundering is the process by which large amounts of unlawfully obtained money (from Illegal arms sales, smuggling, and other organized crime, including drug trafficking and prostitution rings) is given the appearance of having originated from a legitimate source.
Non-violent crimes that involve the taking cash or possessions from an individual without the lawful right to do so are classified as property crimes. These crimes are often called high-volume meaning that the items that are stolen are usually o...