Imagine the police arresting a house. The owner of this house is not in trouble, just their house. This is asset forfeiture at its finest. Asset forfeiture has a wide range of main points to discuss as well as a numerous amount of sub-topics. This form of government control makes a very strong point about how powerful the government has become and how easy it is for them to over-power American’s today. On the other hand, it shows how dedicated law enforcement is to decreasing the crime rates in multiple areas of the country. With that said, there are several viewpoints on asset forfeiture and how it affects Americans as a whole. A few of these viewpoints is that civil asset forfeiture comes with the implication that police just take …show more content…
How can police try and eliminate drugs from the community if they cannot properly follow procedures that enable them to do so?
Most civil cases are very limited in the area of ceasing particular property assets because the owner could possibly not have had anything to do with the actual crime or have any previous criminal activity. Civil asset forfeiture requires a stronger connection to the crime than criminal because it is their property that did the wrong doing (McCaw, 2011). Criminal cases on the other hand have a huge range of potential ceasing opportunities. Each one of these asset forfeiture procedures follows a very specific set of regulations outlined in the forfeiture laws. People tend to have a problem with these laws because “the proceedings take away a person’s 4th and 14th amendment rights outlined in the constitution” which leave most Americans’ very upset and can lead to homelessness in certain situations (Helms & Costanza, 2009). This is one reason that asset forfeiture is such a controversial issue.
Another reason that people are starting to underestimate the government is because they are not properly educated on the topic. Police and government officials “have been utilizing asset forfeiture laws for over a couple hundred years” resulting in a long history of people hating the police (Schaldenbrand, 2010). Having been using these laws for 200+ years, the law enforcement agencies have found numerous loopholes in the
If there is no other way to handle the situation, then the legal owners should be compensated monetarily for the loss of the physical property and any loss of revenue. On the Other hand, those in the judicial system claiming that eminent domain aids in the capture and conviction of criminals who could be a danger to society. They state that in many instances imposing eminent domain gives them the right to search and seize property, thus gathering evidence to convict criminals and placing the property out of their reach for future use. In conclusion, the topic of eminent domain is one that people have strong feelings about because it has long term effects on those involved. There can be many emotions involved since it involves money and
I hope you all can agree that a better idea would go after the source of the drugs or even the treatment of the people using them and hopefully in time the number of people using narcotics drops dramatically. But realistically what happens is people using and distributing narcotics are entered into a never ending life of crime because the government punishes the criminal offenders’ absurd amounts that the government knows they cannot afford. So once released from prison or jail these criminals have debts that they have to repay and no way to pay them. So what is the answer? Crime is the answer. That is where the cynical cycle starts all over again and these released inmates find themselves in a familiar situation; trying to make money for reasons that don’t benefit themselves. But, unfortunately, the only way these people know how to make money is deemed deviant by society.
From the time the war on drugs began law enforcement developed a variety of strategies and tactics to combat drugs. For example, stop and frisk laws, drug courier profiles, and SWAT teams or tasks forces, all
Modern American CAF derives it’s roots from the policies used by police and prosecutors during the time of alcohol prohibition. Law enforcement during early 20th century would often use civil asset forfeiture against the cars, guns, money, and other property of the people who were busted smuggling liquor. Although alcohol prohibition died 80 years ago with the passage of the 21st and the repeal of the 18th amendments, the most common usage of CAF still lies within the realm of enforcing prohibition laws. Civil asset forfeiture is primarily used to fight drug crimes, especially narcotics trafficking (Van Den Berg, 873). Since the passage of the 1970 Comprehensive Drug Reform Act civil asset forfeiture has been expanded by law enforcement in order to meet the additional billions of dollars of strain that the war on drugs places on the budgets of city and county law enforcement agencies around the nation (Ann- Yu Chi, 1639).
The rise of civil asset forfeiture has proved to be one of the most valuable tools in seizing profits from drug cartels and white-collar criminals while helping to reimburse victims of fraud. In essence, there does not seem to be much wrong with the idea of civil asset forfeiture; it is a legal tool which allows law enforcement officials to seize property that is believed to have been involved in certain criminal activity. This property can then be used to pay for technologies which help law enforcement agencies combat further illegal activities. However, civil forfeiture all too often targets the homes, cars, financial assets, and other belongings of innocent people who never committed or are charged with a crime.
Some people believe the drug war is too harsh and needs a new system for stopping the transportation and recreational use of drugs(becker and Murphy C.1). While the current government's method has more of a no tolerance view that most find to be the only way to stop these crimes(becker and murphy C.1).
The War on Drugs is hugely and largely ineffective. In 2005, the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) seized a
The crimes of the drug trade cause communities to fall apart and increase in crime. The war on drugs has been a past, present, and future battle. Stopping the flow of drugs into communities is becoming harder. The funds are low and are not leading to enough options to prevent this problem. The factors to stop this have always been in place. Specific information communicated from departments and other law enforcement agencies will probably help slow down the influx of the drug trade. One recommendation from my readings to ease crime of drug trafficking is more drug treatment facilities. The bigger cities within in America have drug treatment facilities, but they cost. Only the people who can afford the treatments go to the facilities. Border control is another recommendation that address the war on drugs. The reason is terrorism supplied by money, and the money is supplied by drug sales from drug trafficking. Drug trafficking is connected to many other crimes besides terrorism, crimes like money laundering and murder. The ineffective things are throwing money at the war on drugs. Budgetary and financial issues are centered on drug enforcement. The many other countries that make up Central Asia lack the funds to create a law enforcement task force that would enforce only on their borders. Tajikistan is the only country in Central Asia that has a drug task force, but the United Nations funds it. The treatment for people with drug abuse is under
Civil Forfeiture is a process by which the government can take cash, cars, homes, and other property suspected of being involved in criminal activity. With civil forfeiture, the property owner doesn 't have to be charged or convicted of a crime on order for him or her to permanently lose their property; it is considered one of the greatest threats to property rights in the nation today. In 42 states, law enforcement gets to
they do with drugs. The only thing that would accomplish would be law abiding citizens would
But also, we need became proactive as well, keep drugs locked up in safes, not on shelves. Give the drug addicts and drug dealers a reason not to steal from these veterinary hospitals. We should have cops drive up and down these streets, keep a police present at high risk areas. Educate these the society and tell parents what to look for with programs such as DARE. Given classes in school about drugs. As I learned in class even though drug-free school zone catch the wrong people, because they are not dealing to students or they doing it after hours, this is a drug that
According to the Institute for Justice, a civil-libertarian law firm, about 4 in 5 states direct a large portion of civil asset forfeitures directly to the police department which made the seizure – as well as to the prosecutors who litigated the case. In other words, an incentive for authorities to seize
And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities, We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”
To what extent is law enforcement-led approach to the War on Drugs a human rights violation?
In today’s society Community Policing and problem solving is what is needed to keep criminal activity under control. Due to ineffective policing methods crime has continued to be on a rise. Police organizations have learned over the years that getting the community involved in fighting crimes, makes the members of the community feel much safer and gives them some sense of pride in regards to the community they live in. This paper will discuss how much of an impact community policing and problem solving has had between law enforcement and the community in which they serve. This paper will also address solutions more communities are using to help control the access to these different drugs.