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.
Options Specification The options include the review of local government expenditures for civil forfeiture, proceeds from civil forfeiture going to the general fund, and forbidding civil forfeiture.
Review of local government expenditures for civil forfeiture: This option requires law enforcement to disaggregate data by maintaining written documentation of every seizure they make, the circumstances of the seizure and their expenditures. Moreover, disaggregate data for civil and criminal forfeitures. Law enforcement
…show more content…
Political feasibility measures how much stakeholders are in agreement with the option. Administrative feasibility measures the complexity of implementing an option. Financial feasibility measures the financial costs of the option. Equity measures the fairness of an option towards the largest number of people. Effectiveness measures the extent to which the option reduces the abuse of civil forfeiture. The options are measured using rank order where a “1” means the option has low feasibility and “3” means high …show more content…
Administratively, this option is somewhat feasible because it requires the work of state accountants to place civil forfeiture proceeds into the general fund. Financially, this option is the most feasible because it requires no cost. This option is somewhat equitable and effective because it provides some protection for citizens because it takes away some of law enforcement’s incentive to seize property as they are no longer in control of their own
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.
One such solution is the establishment of moral superiority of our criminal justice professionals over our ordinary citizens. It also discussed the decriminalization of victimless crimes, so that our prisons have more room for violent offenders. Another possibility discussed in this section was the equal distribution of wealth to allow youths access to better schooling and more, realistic, opportunities for the lower class to move up in society. In addition to providing possible solutions it also addressed the reasons that these solutions would not be feasible, mostly that these recommendations would create too much competition against the
One aspect of financial incentives lay in the concept of forfeiture. Law enforcement agencies were granted authority to keep the bulk of cash and assets seized when making arrests, which allowed the drug war’s perpetual existence. The drug market then needed to be profitable and successful so that police forces could make money (Alexander, 78-79). A person could be found innocent of a crime and their property could still be subjected to seizure, and “those who were targeted were typically poor or of moderate means, lacking the resources to hire an attorney or pay the considerable court costs” (79). Ultimately, this process was highly lucrative for police. Those with assets could buy their freedom, while those who lacked financial means were subject to arrest. Additionally, there was no real justification for many of the raids. For example, some officers took as little as 93 cents in raids, even though by no means could that amount be considered drug money (82). Property could also be considered “guilty”. For example, a woman who knew her husband sometimes smoked marijuana could have her car forfeited since she allowed him to use her car (83). Unfortunately, forfeiture cases are left unchallenged 90% of the time, since the primary targets of this practice cannot afford lawyers to fight the case. Additionally, federal funding to police departments provided incentives for police arrests in the drug war. Law enforcement agencies that made drug-law top priority were given large sums of money, leading to competitions between departments and higher arrest rates (Alexander, 74). And not only cash assets, but military equipment was doled out by the Pentagon to local police departments in hopes that it would increase arrest rates
Martynenko, Natalia, and Eduard Martynenko. "Advantages and Disadvantages of Confiscating Property as a Criminal Law Measure." Internal Security 3.1 (2011): 225-30. Criminal Justice Abstracts with Full Text. EBSCO. Web. 15 June 2015.
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.
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
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
Mcgraw-Hill, Irwin, (2010) Accounting for the Business-Type Activities of State and Local Governments. Retrieved from http://www.mccc.edu/~horowitk/documents/Chap007_001.pdf
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.
Law enforcement is now able to use surveillance against crimes. Investigators can gather information when looking into terrorism-related crimes. The gathered information may include chemical-weapons, use of weapons of mass destruction, and terrorism financing. Now, federal agents may follow advanced terrorists who are trained to elude detection. The Act authorizes agents to request court permission to track terrorists. Now, federal agents just need to ask a court for an order to obtain business records on high-profile national security cases. These business records provide the missing information that investigators are looking for to solve these crimes.
...he certainty of restitution, by requiring monetary payment, takes the profit out of crime (Carson).
United States in the use of criminal asset forfeiture in federal proceedings. Tony Honeycutt owned a hardware store in Tennessee. Honeycutt’s hardware store was receiving $270,000 profits from water filters that were sold in connection to the manufacturing of methamphetamines. His brother and accomplice, Terry Honeycutt were both convicted. Tony Honeycutt paid $200,000 and Terry was to pay the remaining $70,000. Terry Honeycutt argued he has no stake in his brother’s business and shouldn’t be held liable. The case was sent to the Supreme Court when a circuit court reversed that ruling and stated the Honeycutt’s were “jointly and severally liable” (Kessler). This case became an example of forfeiture abuse. Steven L. Kessler’s, SCOTUS Limits Criminal Forfeiture in 'Honeycutt', explains the decision that The Supreme Court… “held that joint and several liability doesn’t apply to criminal forfeiture. Only assets obtained directly or indirectly by a defendant are subject to forfeiture”. Concluding that the government can’t overreach in asset
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.
Forfeiture, or more specifically asset forfeiture, is, “… an enforcement strategy that federal statutes and some state laws support… [authorizing] judges to seize ‘all monies, negotiable instruments, securities, or other things of value furnished or intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for a controlled substance… and all proceeds traceable to such an exchange’” (Schmalleger, 2015, p. 546). The Federal Bureau of Investigation (n.d.) explains the purpose of asset forfeiture as a means to punish, deter, disrupt, remove tools, return assets to victims, and protect communities (para. 7). Further, there, “… are three types of forfeiture under federal law: criminal forfeiture, civil judicial forfeiture, and administrative forfeiture” (“What We,” n.d., para. 9), each of which are available depending on the circumstances of the crime activity at hand.
Mikesell, J. (2011). Fiscal administration: Analysis and applications for the public sector (8th ed.). Boston