The Civil Asset Forfeiture Laws Essay

For many years, drugs have been the center of crime and the criminal justice system in the United States. Due to this widespread epidemic, President Richard Nixon declared the “War on Drugs” in 1971 with a campaign that promoted the prohibition of illicit substances and implemented policies to discourage the overall production, distribution, and consumption. The War on Drugs and the U.S. drug policy has experienced the most significant and complex challenges between criminal law and the values of today’s society. With implemented drug polices becoming much harsher over the years in order to reduce the overall misuse and abuse of drugs and a expanded federal budget, it has sparked a nation wide debate whether or not they have created more harm than good. When looking at the negative consequences of these policies not only has billions of dollars gone to waste, but the United States has also seen public health issues, mass incarceration, and violent drug related crime within the black market in which feeds our global demands and economy. With this failed approach for drug prohibition, there continues to be an increase in the overall production of illicit substances, high rate of violence, and an unfavorable impact to our nation.

President Nixon first declared the “war on drugs” on June of 1971. This came after heavy drug use during the 1960s. New York in particular, had a rise in heroin use. After Nixon’s declaration, states began decriminalizing the possession and distribution of marijuana and other drugs. Many small drug offences led to a mandatory fifteen years to life. This Drug War has led to an increase of incarceration rates since. One of the earliest laws that followed Nixon’s announcement were the Rockefeller Drug Laws that to not only failed to deter crime but also lead to other problems in the criminal justice system. With the Rockefeller Drug Laws came heavy racial disparity of those incarcerated for drug related crimes. Although the Obama Administration has begun reforms, the new President Elect Trump’s views may bring all the efforts back down.

Chapter 9 focuses on special topics, which reviews the five present and controversial issue in the criminal justice system. Out of all 5 of these issues I think that the use of confidential informants in war on drug is the most harmful to our nation’s correctional system and should be eliminated. The reason I think that the use of confidential informants should be eliminated drug war on drugs is because the use of CI’s frequently have negative consequence on the war on drugs (Austin & Irwin, 2012). The first example, is that CI’s are not appropriately screened and supervised, which causes innocent individuals to be arrest. In my opinion, I think that if CI’s are going to be used then they should be supervised at all time because the lack

When my audience hears “War on Drugs” they may assume it is a worthy endeavor because drug abuse is such a pervasive problem that affects many families. I must dispel the assumption that the “War on Drugs” dealt with the drug abuse problem or reduced drug sales. I can do this by demonstrating that there is plenty of evidence showing that the “War on Drugs” did not do what it set out to do and is therefore not an effective approach to the problem of drug trade and abuse. Additionally the imprisoning of citizens, even if it is done unjustly, does not reduce crime at comparable rates. Research from Harvard found that during the “War on Drugs” in state prisons there was a 66% increase in prison population but crime was only reduced by 2-5% and it cost the taxpayers 53 billion dollars (Coates, 2015). The fact the violent crime went up all through Nixon’s administration while he rallied for “Law & Order” and policing became more severe furthers this argument (Alexander, 2012). Four out five drug arrests are low-level possession charges as well, demonstrating that police policies aren’t dismantling the drug system just punishing addicts (Alexander, 2012). What’s more, drug abuse in America have remained stagnate and even increased in some instances even when billions of dollars have been pumped into the program (National

Even though civil forfeiture is a practice that happens all around the United States, it is a system that many say the police are able to abuse for their own profit. There have been numerous cases where many individuals have been locked in legal battles with the United States government trying to prove that their assets are indeed innocent and not involved with any crimes. Many feel that the civil forfeiture is a form of “policing for profit” especially since many of the assets are used under the Equitable Sharing Program. (Crawford) police can stop motorists, possibly under the pretext of a minor traffic infraction, and "analyze" the intentions of motorists by assessing nervousness, and request permission to search the vehicle without a warrant,

The War on Drugs is one cause for the mass incarceration that has become apparent within the United States. This refers to a drastic amount of people being imprisoned for mainly non-violent crime (“Mass Incarceration” 2016). In addition to people who are not an immediate threat to society being locked up for a substantial duration of time, the economic consequences are costing states and taxpayers millions of dollars. Specifically, every one in five people incarcerated is in prison due to some

The “War On Drugs” and Anti Drug Abuse Act of 1986 required aggressive enforcement. One method is the use of undercover police to enforce these laws. Three factors can jeopardize a dealer’s income: 1) Nonpayment, 2) other dealers encroaching on territories; turf wars and the biggest factor 3) being caught by the police. A method that crack cocaine dealers used to protect these three factors was the use and possession of guns. In the 1980s and 1990’s guns were as plentiful as illegal drugs. The U.S. Department of Justice in a manual of “Promising Strategies To Reduce Gun Violence” cites that “those who are most likely to possess

In the case of Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962), the Supreme Court ruled that a law may not punish a status; i.e., one may not be punished to being an alcoholic or for being addicted to drugs. However, of course, one may be punished for actions such as abusing drugs. The question becomes; What if the status “forces” the action? What if a person, because of his/her addiction to drugs, is “forced” by the addiction to purchase and abuse the illegal drugs? Would punishing that person be unfairly punishing a status?

In the 80’s, President Ronald Regan, declared a “War on Drugs,” which began to utilize criminal justice systems to shuffle black and brown men into a world of injustice. The mass incarceration of these men are for minor, non-violent drug offenses; which carry brutal sentences and entrap these black and brown men into an unforgiven reality of societal and financial discrimination. Alexander unveiled the budget increase for several major governmental agencies such as the FBI—funding increased from $8 million to $95 million with in a four-year span.

Larceny is defined as the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods of another from his or her possession with intent to convert them to the takers own use. To bluntly say it, larceny is stealing from others. No matter what the motives or reasons behind stealing are, it is still wrong. I imagine there is a multitude of motives for someone to convince himself or herself that it is worth the risk to steal something. Some other people might also not have the conscience to feel wrong for stealing. A large part of this is because people do not understand who or what they are harming when they steal. It is very common to become self-indulged and only worry about your problems. Even after being caught someone might only feel

The War on Drugs is a term that is commonly applied to the campaign of prohibition of drugs. The goal of this campaign is to reduce the illegal drug trade across America. This term “ War on Drugs” was used during Nixon’s campaign in which he declared War on Drugs during a press conference in 1971. Following this declaration many organizations were created to stop the spread of drugs, like the DEA and Office of Drug Abuse Law Enforcement. Note that Nixon’s approach to this problem was to fund treatment rather than law enforcement. After Nixon’s retirement from office, most of the funding went from going into treatment to the law enforcement. Which militarized the police force giving the officer’s military weapons and gear. With this, the sentencing for possessing drugs was changed as well, resulting incarcerations rates to increase overtime. The increase of incarceration rates started to create many patterns that were soon noticeable. The funding’s that go into the law enforcement has shown to greatly have an affect on the incarceration rates.

When it comes to the United States, (U.S), the majority of the American people love their seconded amendment rights. As stated in the textbook, Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System by J. Scott Harr, Karen M. Hess, Christine Orthmann, the second amendment of the United States Constitution, for the most part, protects the U.S. citizens rights to “keep and bear arms” (Harr, Hess, Orthmann, & Kingsbury, 2015, p. 167). That being said, each state in the U.S. will vary in their firearms laws. For instance, some states make it easier for their residence to purchase or use a firearm; other states may have stricter laws that require a more scrutinized screening process. To be more specific, most states vary in elements, such as the exceptions to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, the waiting period on purchasing firearms; if someone needs a license to own or purchase a gun; if registration is required; and if a record of the firearm sales is sent to the local police. Other factors that will differ from state to state would include, if some firearms are permitted or not allowed to be sold or owned by a state, the concealed carry laws, hunter protection laws; range protection laws, and finally, not all states have firearm injury lawsuit preemption.

Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs with various other law enforcement and intelligence gathering agencies, including the ODALE, was given the responsibility of enforcing the nation’s federal drug laws. It’s enormous sphere of influence is reflected in its Mission Statement which states among other things; “The mission of the Drug Enforcement Administration is to enforce the controlled substances laws and regulations of the United States and bring to the criminal and civil justice system of the United States, or any other competent jurisdiction, those organizations and principal members of organizations involved in the growing, manufacture, or distribution of controlled substances appearing in or destined for illicit traffic in the United States…”(15) The DEA was designed as an American agency with an international agenda.

According to Michelle Alexander, why and how has the “war on drugs” developed over the last 40 years? What are the main political and economic factors that led to the war on drugs, and what are the main political and economic factors that shaped it as it developed over the last four decades? Draw on material from the Foner textbook chapters 25 through 28 to supplement Alexander’s discussion of the political and economic context.

Indisputably, asset forfeiture refers to the seizure of cash, cars, homes, and other property that the government claims are a result of criminal activity by the government. Furthermore, forfeiture is particularly useful in drug-law enforcement because it diminishes the financial incentive to earn the often colossal profits that are involved in drug trafficking and disrupts a drug-trafficking organization by seizing any means of transportation including boats and planes, or property used to transport or produce illicit drugs. Fundamentally, there are two types of forfeitures: criminal (in personam) forfeitures and civil (in rem) forfeitures (Levinthal, 2012). Similarly, both criminal and civil forfeiture laws are powerful weapons in the hands of law enforcement ("Forfeiture - The Distinction between Criminal and Civil Forfeiture", 2017). Nevertheless, the key difference in these two types of forfeitures is based on whether the penalty pertains to a person or a thing. Thus, criminal forfeitures are primarily against a particular person and results after the conviction for the crime to which the forfeited is related. Moreover, this can be done by showing during the course of sentencing or plea-bargaining that the property was illegally obtained through the profit of a crime. Those criminal forfeitures are subject to all the constitutional and statutory procedural safeguards obtainable under criminal law, and both the forfeiture and criminal case are tried together.