|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 13, 2016 8:59:06 GMT
How did rules of civil forfeiture expand and what were the reasons for it—and the problems Alexander and others cite with its implementation?
|
|
|
|
Post by Timothy Davis on Oct 13, 2016 19:02:26 GMT
Civil forfeiture began with the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act in 1970. It was originally designed to “forestall the spread of drugs in a way criminal penalties could not- by striking at its economic roots.” The original belief was that drug dealers were easily replaced, but their economic means were not. The permissions for what could be seized greatly expanded over the years, up until 1984 when Congress passed a law that allowed federal agencies to retain what they gained during civil forfeitures. Early on, prior to the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act in 2000, property could be considered guilty despite whether or not the owner was guilty. If a car had drugs in it but the owner was not driving it, the car could still be seized. The reform act changed this a little with the “innocent owner” defense, yet the burden of proof on police was by a “preponderance of the evidence” which is easy to meet (p. 82). Burden of proof then shifts to the owners who could have a distance relation to the crime, with no direct knowledge of it, and still have their property seized.
As Alexander states, this allowed the departments to greatly expand upon their budgets. This gave them an incentive to seize goods based on “mere suspicious of illegal drug activity” with “nothing more than hearsay, innuendo, or even the paid, self-serving testimony of someone with interests clearly adverse to the property owner” (p. 79). One irony that Alexander notes is when a suspected individual has their items seized, yet are not charged with a crime, they then have to pay a lawyer to represent them in the proceedings to gain back their items. Since these individuals are innocent and never charged with a crime, they are not given the right of free representation like charged suspects would have. This is incredibly ironic because innocent people lose their items, which are not worth the cost of a lawyer or they do not know how to retrieve their seized goods, while guilty people are allowed free representation.
One large critique noted by Alexander was that officers, in anticipation of seizing large amounts of goods and money, will often “disregard the formalities of search warrants, probable cause, and reasonable suspicion altogether” (p. 80). One journalist in Southern California noted that some officers go so far as to plant evidence and falsify police reports to establish probably cause so they may seize goods. Even by the time goods are returned it can cost more money than the item is worth and the item even may retain damage from the time it spent with law enforcement.
Overall, civil forfeiture created an atmosphere in which law enforcement agencies could virtually create their own budget as long as they could find the right goods to seize or even plant the right evidence if they so choose. They have been given a financial incentive to find drug crime whether or not it is legitimate- all at the expense of both the guilty and the innocent alike.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Mooney on Oct 13, 2016 20:56:37 GMT
Due to the initial pushback that the Reagan administration received from some police departments about making drug enforcement a top priority, they needed to provide financial incentives to ensure widespread cooperation. Many of these incentives came in the form of federal grants, much of which came through the renamed Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program. Aside from this, the Reagan administration also gave state and local law enforcement agencies the authority to “keep, for their own use, the vast majority of cash and assets they seize when waging the drug war.”
This particular incentive made perpetuation of the drug war an extremely lucrative endeavor for these law enforcement agencies. It also put these departments in a position where they had a vested interest in the profitability of the very drug markets they were supposedly waging a war against. These forfeiture laws originally came from the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, which included a civil forfeiture provision allowing the government to seize drugs, manufacturing and storage equipment, and conveyances used in the transport of drugs. Originally, the idea was that through seizing these things, the government was disrupting the drug market in a more direct way than criminal sentences could. As time went on, there were more properties that could be seized legally, and the connection required for seizure became less stringent.
In 1984, Congress amended the federal law “to allow federal law enforcement agencies to retain and use any and all proceeds from asset forfeitures, and to allow state and local police agencies to retain up to 80 percent of the assets’ value.” This led to unprecedented abuse. Police could now vastly increase their budgets through seizing these types of properties. When the new rules were first drafted, the law that governed civil forfeiture so strongly favored the government that 80 percent of forfeitures were not contested.
The issues with these laws are plentiful. For one, the probable cause required could be based on nothing more than “hearsay, innuendo, or even the paid, self-serving testimony of someone with interests clearly adverse to the property owner.” The owner of the property does not even need to be charged with a crime in order for their property to be subject to forfeiture. And even if they are found innocent of an alleged crime, their property may still be seized. The property owner has no right to counsel and must prove the “innocence” of the property in question. The worst irony of civil forfeiture is that it contradicts the perceived goals of the drug war. The claim that the drug war is concerned with “kingpins” is undermined by the statistics showing who is most affected by civil forfeiture. Those most typically caught up in these issues are far from what anyone could consider a “kingpin”. Many of them have no personal connection to the drug trade whatsoever.
Current civil forfeiture is a product of the zealousness with which the Reagan administration attacked the War on Drugs. That administration gave law enforcement carte blanche to take the fight to the drug markets. In doing so, however, it also guaranteed that the war would continue as long as there was money to be made from it. This certainty was provided through the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program and the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act. These agencies were told to run wild, and that is exactly what they did.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Sheridan on Oct 13, 2016 21:19:56 GMT
Civil forfeiture did nothing but entice both federal and local law enforcement agencies to push harder on the drug war. As Timothy mentioned earlier, the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act really opened the door to law enforcement gaining interest in not only forfeited property but also in the success of the drug market itself. Under this act, federal law enforcement agencies were allowed to retain and use any and all proceeds from asset forfeiture, and allowed state and local agencies to retain up to 80 percent of the assets' value. This not only made the drug war more enticing but it placed a real economic incentive on it as well. Law enforcement agencies were now enticed more than ever to fight the war, with hopes to forfeiture assets of anyone suspected of drug charges.
Alexander notes that journalist and investigators have documented numerous instances in which police departments have engaged in illegal activity in search of forfeitable property and cash. An example provided by Alexander found that police have used traffic violations as on excuse to confiscate "tens of thousands of dollars from motorists against whom there was no evidence of wrong doing". One of the more erroneous rules to come out of the civil forfeiture movement was that the individuals who had their assets taken must "prove their innocence" in order to not have them forfeited. This seems very troubling to me due to the fact that there has not been a charge filed and yet all the persons possessions are being taken and they must prove something otherwise to keep them.
Civil forfeiture just seems inherently problematic. I can sort of see how it can help encourage law enforcement agencies to fight harder, but the sheer greed and blatant disregard to due process is astonishing. I feel that if civil forfeiture should be done, the money should go toward something more helpful such as drug rehabilitation programs. It would be sort of funny and ironic to use drug money to fund rehabilitation programs but there is an obvious disconnect when the forfeited assets are being funneled into law enforcement agencies blindly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Timothy Davis on Oct 14, 2016 13:50:04 GMT
As Michael mentioned, civil forfeiture is not only problematic but encourages blatant disregard for the 4th amendment. I wanted to add just a small snippet on what can be considered a pro towards civil forfeiture.
Aside from the numerous negatives we have already mentioned above, civil forfeiture can be an effective tool of an investigator and law enforcement official by removing the material means that allow for crimes to be committed. Alexander herself mentions this at one point before she lists the negatives. In an ideal world, the use of civil forfeiture would halt any possible ongoing crimes while police further investigate. Then when an investigation is complete, a guilty party would not receive their goods or an innocent party would receive their goods back. This is a common technique used in white collar crimes when sending a subpoena or debarring a vendor. The idea is to notify a suspected criminal that you are on to them, and ideally put a halt to their current criminal activities.
Of course all of this is in an ideal world, and as Alexander's entire book points out- this is not an ideal world and the above methods are easily, and all too often, abused.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrei Karneyeu on Oct 14, 2016 14:37:33 GMT
The reasons behind civil forfeiture, as Congress stated, are to shut down the business for good by eliminating the product and means of productions. Congress stated that by putting a drug dealer in jail, there will be many more to replace them. But, if you take the means of production and the product, this will shut down the business. Congress expanded the asset forfeiture to include up to 80% of assets, which included cash, homes, guns, cars and other valuable assets that police departments and other government agencies acquired.
Police departments, later were able to increase their budgets and weaponry by seizing the property based on a mere suspicion of illegal drug activity, which is, in my opinion, completely unfair. This gave police an enormous power to what they want, because there is a low standard of procedure to be followed. As Alexander mentioned, a mere ex-parte, no hearing or notice, a house can be seized based merely upon showing some probable cause.
The war on drugs was supposed to target “king-pins,” serious drug dealers and not minor offenders. But this because a lucrative business all around, with seizing the property and cash to mass incarcerating for minor offences, to putting more and more people into jails; creating revenue all around. All is good when this technique works, but not when a large number of minor offenders are in prisons, and the bosses roam free.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Mooney on Oct 14, 2016 14:45:59 GMT
I wholeheartedly agree with Michael's idea of putting the money gained through civil forfeiture toward drug rehabilitation programs. I believe that the standards required to connect an object to the drug trade are far too lax right now, and that the protections for those wrongly caught up in these issues are virtually non-existent. If we were to change the standards that would link someone's property to the drug trade, eliminating many of the cases where innocent people are losing their property, I believe this policy could then be extremely effective. I cannot think of a better way to put the profits of civil forfeiture to use. By investing the money in drug rehabilitation, you are attacking the drug market by taking away consumers, while still attacking the production side by seizing profits that were veritably gained through the drug trade. Perhaps federal grant money could instead be offered to the law enforcement agencies that use the civil forfeiture money in this way. I do not see any other way that these agencies would even consider giving up the arrangement that they currently enjoy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Carl Desir on Oct 14, 2016 21:20:23 GMT
During the 1980s, federal and state law enforcement officials dramatically expanded the use of civil forfeiture as a tool in the war on drugs . Their reasoning was the belief of them seizing the assets and illegally earned income of criminals, they could remove the financial incentive to commit crime. In 1984, Congress created the Assets Forfeiture Fund and enabled law enforcement agencies to retain the proceeds of their seizures. Before this act by Congress forfeiture funds were directed to the General Fund of the Treasury.In 2000, Congress took up the cause of innocent property owners and passed the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act wwhic encourages forfeitures and is stacked against innocent property owners.
Alexander noted that officers, in anticipation of seizing large amounts of goods and money, will often disregard the formalities of search warrants, probable cause, and reasonable suspicion altogether. In other words they will act as they please with no regard to the law. Some officers go so far as to place their own contraband to frame and falsify police reports to establish probably cause so they may seize goods from criminals. Even by the time goods are returned it can cost more money than the item is worth and the item even may retain damage from the time it spent with law enforcement.
Civil forfeiture allows law enforcement agencies to manage their own budget as long as they can plant the right evidence if they so choose on criminals. This allows them to also focus primarily on drug crimes which can leave the community at a disadvantage.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tylor Beck on Oct 15, 2016 3:45:46 GMT
In response to Timothy,
Do you think it's possible that is the police and courts engage in civil forfeiture that the criminal won't just try and move their money elsewhere or open a new bank or something of the like to launder or conceal their assets? Also most smart criminals have their money, drugs, or whatever else hidden in multiple locations, so even if they get hit for one bank account or one car, or etcetera.. It is unlikely that the police or courts are really doing much damage to them.
|
|
Cynthia L. Benjamin
Guest
|
Post by Cynthia L. Benjamin on Oct 15, 2016 3:50:27 GMT
During the 1980s, federal and state law enforcement officials dramatically expanded the use of civil forfeiture as a tool in the war on drugs . Their reasoning was the belief of them seizing the assets and illegally earned income of criminals, they could remove the financial incentive to commit crime. In 1984, Congress created the Assets Forfeiture Fund and enabled law enforcement agencies to retain the proceeds of their seizures. Before this act by Congress forfeiture funds were directed to the General Fund of the Treasury.In 2000, Congress took up the cause of innocent property owners and passed the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act wwhic encourages forfeitures and is stacked against innocent property owners. Alexander noted that officers, in anticipation of seizing large amounts of goods and money, will often disregard the formalities of search warrants, probable cause, and reasonable suspicion altogether. In other words they will act as they please with no regard to the law. Some officers go so far as to place their own contraband to frame and falsify police reports to establish probably cause so they may seize goods from criminals. Even by the time goods are returned it can cost more money than the item is worth and the item even may retain damage from the time it spent with law enforcement. Civil forfeiture allows law enforcement agencies to manage their own budget as long as they can plant the right evidence if they so choose on criminals. This allows them to also focus primarily on drug crimes which can leave the community at a disadvantage. Carl, You highlighted some excellent points in your response. The idea that sparked the Asset Forfeiture Fund seemed like a good one at the outset of the program; however, many citizens have felt the negative effects of this initiative because of the desire for police departments to glean funds monetary support from the government. These incentives can cause police departments to make fraudulent claims in order to collect, but it is the drug programs that lend them the most government support. |
|
|
|
Post by RussellSlike on Jan 2, 2019 9:35:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Charlesuneli on Feb 3, 2019 16:54:22 GMT
Привет всем! класный у вас сайт! Нашел обширную базу кино: <b> русские боевики сериалы бесплатно в хорошем качестве </b> <a href=http://inspacefilm.ru/>http://inspacefilm.ru/</a> Здесь: лучшее аниме онлайн новинки смотреть бесплатно inspacefilm.ru/anime/ рейтинг 2019 Здесь: <a href=http://inspacefilm.ru/boevik/>Смотреть лучшие боевики</a> фантастические боевики бесплатно в хорошем качестве рейтинг 2019 Тут: <a href=http://inspacefilm.ru/detektiv/>смотреть лучшие детективы 2018 2019</a> смотреть детектив 2018 онлайн в хорошем качестве рейтинг 2018 Тут: inspacefilm.ru/2787-rycar-dorog-knight-rider-2008.html <b> Смотреть Рыцарь дорог / Knight Rider (2008) онлайн бесплатно </b> Тут: <a href=http://inspacefilm.ru/13930-chto-syn-zaka-snaydera-dumaet-o-lige-spravedlivosti.html> Что сын Зака Снайдера думает о «Лиге справедливости» </a> Что сын Зака Снайдера думает о «Лиге справедливости» Тут: inspacefilm.ru/2719-napadenie-na-centralnyy-bank-assalto-ao-banco-central-2011.html |
|
|
|
Post by Davidplapy on Feb 10, 2019 22:27:46 GMT
Hello everyone! I want to present you the best site for sex Dating. Click on me. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Хочу представить вам лучший сайт для секс знакомств. Нажми на меня. |
|
|
|
Post by Spntrustr on Feb 13, 2019 9:44:10 GMT
get <a href="http://xgenericlevitra.com/">levitra generico</a> to rebel against medical | <a href=http://xgenericlevitra.com/>levitra heartburn</a> to make big money
|
|
|
|
Post by escorte paris 16 on Mar 7, 2019 18:52:04 GMT
Every single time they feel lonely, and they need to have a private time with a gorgeous lady, they call an erotic massage London escort service.
escort girl paris 10 at bunga-escorts.com/paris-escorts/nadia-escort-model-paris
|
|
