The Pros And Cons Of Civil Asset Forfeiture

In the United States of America there are currently two prison systems in place; the Federal prison system, and the State prison system. Every state in the U.S. has its own Department of Corrections, which is tasked with handling crimes committed at the state level (Allen, 2017). The state where the crime occurred has jurisdiction over the individual that committed the crime. An individual, whom has committed a crime within a state’s jurisdiction that results in a long sentence, is sent to the state prison system in that particular state (Allen, 2017). A long sentence encompasses a period of time which exceeds a year, and a day; which is the length of time given to an individual convicted of a felony crime. An individual convicted of a misdemeanor crime which is accompanied by a sentencing length of less than a year, will serve their respective sentence in a jail. Once the individual has received their sentence, they will go through an initial classification process (Allen, Latessa, and Ponder, 2013). The purpose of the initial classification process is to identify the individual’s custody level, work assignment, and treatment. The initial classification process will differentiate between those individuals that present different security risks, and supervision concerns. Factors such as the individual’s current offense, escape potential and prior criminal history are factored in during the initial classification. Also, an individual’s background attributes, such as mental

In the United States “civil forfeiture" is a legal procedure which might be brought during or after criminal accusations are recorded in the court. It is a court proceeding recorded against a property or against a person which allows law enforcement to take away cash and or property. Based on the article End of Forfeiture (2017), 87% of federal forfeitures were not criminals but civil, the government didn’t have to convict or charge anyone to take the property. Once the U.S. Lawyer's Office gets a referral from a seizing organization of a seized resource case, that office has 90 days to either document a civil legal case or incorporate the seized resource in a criminal arraignment and name it for criminal Forfeiture. On the off chance that a civil case is not documented within those 90 days, the CAFRA "capital punishment" will keep the United States from continuously recording a civil Forfeiture case. If the advantage is incorporated into a prosecution and the respondent is later vindicated or has a conviction turned around to offer, the property can't be surrendered. Thus, numerous U.S. prosecutors record a suspicious civil forfeiture activity and incorporate the property for criminal forfeiture in an arraignment (Weld, n.d, 2011.).

Search and seizure is a vital and controversial part of criminal justice, from the streets to the police station to court. It is guided by the Fourth Amendment, which states that people have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure of their bodies, homes, papers, and possessions and that warrants describing what and where will be searched and/or seized are required to be able to search the above things (“Fourth Amendment,” n.d.). Interpretations of the Fourth Amendment by the U.S. Supreme Court and the establishment of case law by many state and federal courts have expanded upon the circumstances under which search and seizure is legal. Several doctrines and exceptions have also emerged from the Supreme Court and other case law that guide law enforcement officers on the job and aid lawyers in court.

The criminal justice system is a used to protect our society from those who try to harm it. Departments such as courts, and police officers study the behavior of criminals; they want our communities to be safe. When a crime is committed these departments work together to protect the rights of our society and our own. As stated in the textbook, a crime is the “Conduct in violation of the criminal laws of a state, the federal government, or a local jurisdiction for which there is no legally acceptable justification or excuse” (Schmalleger). Our system is a balanced system, there are times where have to think about our own rights as one person, but there are also times where we have to include other people. We must think of our society and

The criminal justice system has been proven to play a very important role in society. The criminal justice system is used to keep the citizens in check and to make sure that the laws that are made are being followed. It also is there to penalize anyone who disobeys the laws. In the criminal justice system, there are 3 main parts, law enforcement, adjudication, and corrections. Law enforcement is self-explainable. It consists of the law enforcers such as police officers and sheriffs. Adjudication is made up of people in the court house such as judges and lawyers. Corrections is made up of jailhouse matters such as prison officials. In these many components of the criminal justice system, there are all put in place to help correct people to do the right thing. There are punitive efforts and rehabilitative efforts. At time, the system may lean towards one category or more, which can be dangerous in terms of disciplinary action. The criminal justice system is more punitive than rehabilitative which makes the system ineffective.

Criminal justice is defined as the system of law enforcement that is directly involved in apprehending, prosecuting, defending, sentencing, and punishing those who are suspected or convicted of Committing a crime. Jews and Christians consider to be a product of divine inspiration and a record of the relationship between GOD and humans. Criminal justice is a process, involving a series of steps beginning with a person committing an alleged crime, a criminal investigation and ending with the release of a convicted offender from correctional supervision. Rules and decision making are at the center of the process.

As Shaila Dewan stated in her article from the New York Times; “Police Use Department Wish List When Deciding Which Assets to Seize”. The practice of civil forfeiture has come under fire in recent months, amid a spate of negative press reports and growing outrage among civil rights advocates, libertarians and members of Congress who have raised serious questions about the fairness of the practice, which critics say runs without thinking or caring about the opinions, rights, or feelings of others over due process. (Nov. 9, 2014).

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,

There are two legal terms “search” and “seizure”. The legal term search means to examine another's premises to look for evidence of criminal activity. Under the 4th and 14th Amendments it is unconstitutional for law enforcement officers to conduct a search without a "search warrant" issued by a judge or without facts which give the officer "probable cause" to believe evidence of a specific crime is on the premises if there is not enough time to obtain a search warrant. The legal term seizure means the taking by law enforcement officers of potential evidence in a criminal case. The constitutional limitations on seizure are the same as for search. Thus, evidence

The Fourth Amendment has two basic premises. One focuses on the reasonableness of a search and seizure, and the other on warrants. One view is that the two are distinct, while another view is that the second helps explain the first. However, which interpretation is correct is unclear. In addition, law enforcement today differs sharply from the period in which the Constitution 's framers lived. During that period, no organized police forces existed that were even remotely like those of today. In contrast, today 's law enforcement officials seem to have broad authority to search and seize. These powers are not generally subject to either statutory or regulatory control, and common law limitations are generally ill defined and

In chapter 4, the textbook discusses the Criminal justice system and how the system works. The criminal justice system is a system setup to punish those accused of criminal offenses. Crimes such as murder, rape, robbery or crimes that are considered felonies. Many people are found guilty of their crimes and others are found innocent. People find this a good system to properly punish those who have committed offenses. I disagree that the system is a good system that helps people. The reason for me disagreeing is that the system is not perfect. There have been cases where the jury has come to a verdict that was wrong. Cases where the jury wrongly incarcerated somebody or cases where the jury acquitted somebody when they were guilty. A system

In pursuit of the war on drugs, changes had been made to the nature of law enforcement and prosecution. Law enforcement have now been more empower with these new policies seem to have diminish civilians rights, such policies gave law enforcement power to violate third and fourth amendment. “Using general warrants, British soldiers were allowed to enter private homes, confiscate what they found, and often keep the bounty for themselves. The policy was reminiscent of today’s civil asset forfeiture laws.”(Balko, R, 2013) The civil asset forfeiture statute is an asset seizure of possessions that are alleged proceeds from criminal activity. Criminal activity over the decades had developed and more organized. Criminals would get their mandatory minimum sentence and the crime enterprise would just continue, but legislators’ passed a statute to dismantle entire criminal organizations and it’s known as Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations or R.I.C.O. Passed in 1970 it was used in the prosecution of Sicilian mafia in New York city. Instead of prosecuting criminals individually such as solders and capo, it was effective in shutting down entire criminal organizations. R.I.C.O statute appeared to be effective on the war on drugs. The combination of the two policies provided incentives to battle the war on drug. Assets were disseminated among various law enforcement departments, putting more officers on the streets, obtaining newer police vehicles and countless equipment for law

Search and seizure has recently been a communal debated issue for most of society. The controversy is split, one stance is for public safety and the other is for privacy. The Fourth Amendment, unreasonable search and seizure, was adopted into The Constitution of the United States to tackle “writ of assistance”, a general search warrant used during British rule. Unlike the general search warrants used during British rule, search and seizure have many guidelines and court precedents preventing law enforcement from randomly going through someone’s property. Like any rule, you will always have rule breakers; if the evidence is illegally seized, then that falls under the exclusionary rule.

This case has had an effect on society because it shows how the rights of an individual were considered less important than the administration of justice. This case marked a turning point in the Supreme Court 's thinking. With the introduction of the exclusionary rule, the Court devised a way of enforcing the Fourth Amendment. Since evidence seized unlawfully could no longer be used in federal court against a defendant, a prosecutor might lose or drop a case for lack of evidence. Having the police be careful next time to obtain search warrants and make sure their searches and seizures are legal.

The United States is home to five percent of the world population, but 25 percent of the world’s prisoner. There must be a change to the current prison system which is doing more harm than good in American society and must be reformed. Reasons for this claim are that American prisons are too overcrowded with inmates, which creates a dangerous and unhuman environment. The cost to run a prison has gotten too expensive for tax payer pockets, and lastly the prison system is more as a punishment instead of rehabilitation with about sixteen percent of inmates most serious offence being drug charges. Prisons fall short of reforming criminals and the government is obligated to completely reform the prison systems in the United States.