Anmerkungen:
Nach Informationen von SSRN wurde die ursprüngliche Fassung des Dokuments August 19, 2015 erstellt
Beschreibung:
Earlier work evaluated the association of asset forfeiture with the clearances of crimes reported to police and with the distribution of arrests by type. This paper provides further results concerning the impact of forfeiture on policing.Asset forfeiture refers to a government seizure of assets that are the instrumentalities or fruits of a crime. Criminal forfeiture requires the criminal conviction of the owner of the assets. However, forfeiture often occurs even when a crime is not prosecuted. Under civil forfeiture, the property itself is the defendant and generally does not have the “beyond a reasonable doubt” protection afforded to people; instead, the standard of proof is usually a weaker standard, such as probable cause or preponderance of the evidence. The actual owner of the property has the status of a third party intervener and may bear the burden of proof to show that the asset is not implicated in a crime. If the seizure of an asset is not challenged by the owner, a non‐judicial, administrative forfeiture occurs. The low standards of proof, the locus of the burden of proof, and widespread use of administrative and civil forfeiture raise difficult civil rights questions. Even more controversial, however, is the fact that police agencies often can retain the cash and other assets that they seize. This has led to accusations that civil forfeiture encourages “policing for profit.”