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 …show more content…
that asset forfeiture could deliver a painful punishment when people have a personal connection to an item such as a house (p. 197). Moreover, asset forfeiture can take away capital that criminals need to commit a crime. For instance, law enforcement seizing the car of a drug courier can hinder their illegal activity (McCaw, 2011, p. 198). In Baiker and Johnson’s (2007) study they showed that local governments take a portion of seizure proceeds from law enforcement agencies bv reducing funding that was supposed to be normally allocated to the agencies. They state that local governments are more likely to practice this during times of fiscal distress and funding is usually diverted to other public welfare programs. Hence, law enforcement agencies turn to asset forfeiture not always because its incentives, but also to make up for their decreased funding (Baiker & Johnson, 2007, p. 2135). Furthermore, their results showed that when law enforcement agencies get to keep more of the assets that they seize they respond by increasing their amount of anti-drug policing (Baiker & Johnson, 2007, p. 2115). Moores (2009), states that civil forfeiture creates incentives for law enforcement, which makes them focus more on lucrative forfeitures instead of serious criminals (p. 6). Moreover, he states that asset forfeitures can lead to violent altercations. He notes that one practice used by law enforcement to increase profits is reverse stings where a police officer attempts to sell drugs to an unknown buyer (Moores, 2009, p. 6). This tactic allows law enforcement agents to seize money instead of drugs because drugs have no value for the agency (Moores, 2009, p. 6). For instance, Mark Flatten (2011) of the Goldwater Institute, stated that in the last five years since 2011, the Chandler Police Department in Arizona has raised $6.8 million through forfeitures (Flatten, 2011). In a 12-month period where the department raised $3.2 million, they raised $2.7 million through reverse stings (Flatten, 2011). He states that this number is equal to one fourth of the department’s budget (Flatten, 2011). Out of 35 of their forfeiture cases, 20 were reverse stings and they only targeted low-level marijuana peddlers (Flatten, 2011). In Oregon the state government has created an Asset Oversight Advisory Committee (AFOAC) that is responsible for making sure that law enforcement agencies that seize property report them on time. The AFOAC disaggregates reports as they track both criminal and civil forfeitures separately (Institute, n.db). According to ORS 131A.450, law enforcement is required to maintain written documentation of every seizure (Oregon, n.da). Following a seizure, the law enforcement’s forfeiture counsel is required to file a report electronically to the AFOAC (Oregon, n.da). The report must identify the property law enforcement seized as well as the circumstances (Oregon, n.da). Moreover, according to ORS 131A.455 (5)(a) the AFOAC must report law enforcement’s “disposition and use of the proceeds from the forfeitures” (Oregon, n.db). If proceeds of a forfeited property are distributed among local or states agencies these agencies must also submit an electronic report to the AFOAC (Criminal, n.d). The AFOAC then submits this report to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, President of the Senate, Attorney General and Governor (Criminal, n.d). The AFOAC can make recommendations to increase the effectiveness, fairness and efficiency of forfeiture actions (Oregon, n.db). Moreover, the AFOAC can conduct studies (Oregon, n.db). In Maine, proceeds from asset forfeitures are deposited in the state’s General Fund, rather than earmarked for local law enforcement agency expenditures. According to Me. Stat. tit. 15, §§ 5822(4), if a prosecutor wins a cases the proceeds from forfeited property are to be deposited into the general fund (Maine, n.d). If some of the property is given to “a municipality, county or state agency, or to the district attorneys budget,” it must be with the consent of the court and written consent of the Attorney General (Maine, n.d). These groups must have contributed in the investigation or prosecutions of the case where the property was subject to forfeiture. Once the property is sent to the municipality or county it is up to their discretion on how to use the property (Maine, n.d). On April 10, 2015, Governor Susana Martinez signed HB 560, which abolished civil forfeiture in New Mexico and replaced it with criminal forfeiture (McCoy, 2015). According to N.M. Stat. Ann. § 31-27-4 a person’s property can only be forfeited if the person is arrested and convicted in criminal court (New, n.d). Before a forfeiture the state must establish “clear and convincing evidence that the property is subject to forfeiture” (New, n.d). After a person is convicted, the court may forfeit property that the convicted person obtained while committing an offense and used to commit the offense (New, n.d). Moreover, the state can forfeit property that is linked to property the person convicted obtained while the committing the offense (New, n.d). Stakeholder Analysis The key stakeholders are Arizona’s Governor Doug Ducey, Arizona’s American Civil Liberties Union Branch (ACLU AB), the Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys’ Advisory Council (APAAC), Executive Director of the Arizona Fraternal Order of Police (AFOOP) Jimm Mann, Arizona House Speaker David Gowan, and Arizona Senator Jeff Flake.
Doug Ducey, Governor of Arizona: He has the ability to veto or sign your planned bill. Ducey is in favor of increasing the transparency of forfeiture reports submitted by law enforcement. On March 23, 2015 Ducey required law enforcement agencies to submit quarterly civil forfeiture reports to county and city governments (Phillips & Mahoney, 2015). Originally, law enforcement agencies where only require to submit reports to the ACJC and the federal government (Phillips & Mahoney, 2015).
ACLU AB: The ACLU is a non-profit organization that aides in defending people’s constitutional rights. The organization is nationwide and has 50 offices that file state and federal cases (ACLU, n.d). Moreover, the ACLU has over one million “members, activists, and supporters across the country” (ACLU, n.d). The ACLU AB strongly opposes civil forfeiture. They took on Ms. Cox’s case because they believe that Arizona’s forfeiture laws violated her First Amendment rights, which is her ability to petition the government (ACLU, 2015b, p. 3). Moreover, they see citizen’s lack of ability to petition the government as an incentive for law enforcement to seize property (ACLU, 2015b, p. 5). Their solution is to abolish civil
forfeiture. APAAC: The APAAC was established in 1973, to provide training and legal research to prosecutors in Arizona (Arizona, n.db). The APAAC consists of 800 prosecutors from the various cities and counties of Arizona. They believe that civil forfeiture is a valuable tool since it takes the cost of crime fighting away from the taxpayer and places it on the criminal (Arizona, n.db). They state that since the economic crisis Arizona prosecutors and police agencies budgets have been in trouble. Agencies such as the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area task force strictly depend on forfeiture funds to operate (Arizona, n.dc). They believe that banning civil forfeiture would mean less money to fight criminals and cartels. Furthermore, they state that critics have isolated a few bad instances of civil forfeiture and that there are protections for people who had their property forfeited. For instance, a judge must approve of a civil forfeiture order, in which a copy is provided to the ACJC (Arizona, n.dc). Lastly, the funds help support crime-tip hotlines, drug-free mentoring programs and adult training programs (Arizona, n.dc).
The rights of Dwight Dexter in the Fifth Amendment were violated. The amendment prevents the government from prosecuting people unfairly. Accused cannot be jailed or have their property taken without due process
Cost effectiveness is an example of how community corrections have more of a positive effect on the community. One benefit of probation and parole is that is has a much lower cost. It costs roughly $1,300 per person a year for probation or parole. Having a person on probation or parole also puts money into the community. Another good benefit that parole and probation has is increased employment. Inmates in prison have work-release programs but they have low-paying jobs that require little skill. Parole and probation allows ex-inmates the opportunity to get full-time j...
Justice is often misconceived as injustice, and thus some essential matters that require more legal attentions than the others are neglected; ergo, some individuals aim to change that. The principles of civil disobedience, which are advocated in both “Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau and “Letter from Birmingham Jail” by Martin Luther King Jr. to the society, is present up to this time in the U.S. for that purpose.
Schultz, David, and John R. Vile. The Encyclopedia of Civil Liberties in America. 710-712. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale Virtual Reference Library, n.d. Web. 18 Mar. 2010. .
One of the Legal Rights the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects is: The right to be free of imprisonment, search, and seizure without reasons backed by the law. “In a undisclosed school in Canada, there was a sudden police checking, in which police dogs roamed around the hallway of the school to see if there was any suspicious substance or object. During the checking, the police fo...
Rose, Carol. "American Civil Liberties Union." American Civil Liberties Union. N.p., 08 Dec. 2012. Web. 12 Mar. 2014.
...d time involved but in the long run keeping children out of prison and the adult system in general will save more money.
During one of our class sessions we discussed the different areas within the criminal justice system. The topic of courts and sentencing specifically of juveniles was mentioned. As we get to know the inside students we learn some of their backstory of how they ended up at Joseph Harp Correctional Facility, many of them had their first contact with the criminal justice system as a juvenile. Several of the inside students expressed animosity toward the courts when it came to sentencing of juveniles. They thought that some of the ways juveniles are sentenced is too harsh.
all. To fully understand what the ACLU has done for the United States would take
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.
“Most Supreme Court Cases regarding criminal justice try to strike a balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of the society. The Supreme Court has the difficult task of bringing balance between these two often conflicting goals.” (POLICE, 2011, p.181).
Rostron, A. (1999). "Inside the ACLU: Activism an Anti-Communism in the Late 1960s". New England Law Review 33.
The benefits of corrections include deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation or reform. Mrs. Prescott explained to me that she would “like to think there’s a link” between crime rates and the effectiveness of prisons. As part of the rehabilitation process, prisons like
...he certainty of restitution, by requiring monetary payment, takes the profit out of crime (Carson).
First, in 2015, the Iowa Court System collected $155.9 million in revenue from fines (xi). This revenue was then split between the state government (Iowa General Fund), cities and counties, prison infrastructure and several other projects. By following a system that has a higher collection rate for fines revenue will increase for state and local governments. There will be fewer people going to prison, jail or probation thus reducing the cost associated with building new jails and prisons, and the cost of maintaining and staffing the old prisons. The jail and prison cells will also be saved for more serious offenses. This increased revenue can go to various projects from transportation infrastructure to paying off the state deficit. This year the State of Iowa faced a budget deficit of $131 million dollars and as of 2015, the state was owed $682,720,000 in outstanding court fines (xiii). By implementing a system that takes into account a person's ability to pay a portion of this might have been repaid. Collecting just 19% of the outstanding fines would have allowed the state to pay for the budget deficit. This would have meant there would have been no slashing of funds going to cities, counties, and state universities and state