An Exploratory Analysis of Federal Litigation in the United States Challenging Asset Forfeiture

2010 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 50-64
Author(s):  
Shaun L. Gabbidon ◽  
George E. Higgins ◽  
Favian Martin ◽  
Matthew Nelson ◽  
Jimmy Brown
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Exploratory Analysis ◽  
Asset Forfeiture

scholarly journals The hidden societal cost of antibiotic resistance per antibiotic prescribed in the United States: an exploratory analysis

2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Constantinos I. Michaelidis ◽  
Michael J. Fine ◽  
Chyongchiou Jeng Lin ◽  
Jeffrey A. Linder ◽  
Mary Patricia Nowalk ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Antibiotic Resistance ◽  
The United States ◽  
Societal Cost ◽  
Exploratory Analysis

scholarly journals Civil asset forfeiture, equitable sharing, and policing for profit in the United States

2011 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 273-285 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jefferson E. Holcomb ◽  
Tomislav V. Kovandzic ◽  
Marian R. Williams
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
For Profit ◽  
Equitable Sharing ◽  
Asset Forfeiture

Guilty Things

boundary 2 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 181-198
Author(s):  
Colin Dayan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Legal History ◽  
Legal Reasoning ◽  
The United States ◽  
Reasonable Doubt ◽  
Procedural Safeguards ◽  
Asset Forfeiture ◽  
Fail Safe

What kind of legal history might account for the unique and continued practice of forfeiture in the United States? Law enforcement, as many recent writers have argued, has grown increasingly dependent on this fail-safe way to gain revenue, since civil asset forfeiture has few procedural safeguards. Unlike criminal forfeiture (in personam), civil forfeiture generally proceeds against the offending property (in rem), not against the person. A piece of property does not have the rights of a person; so, instead of proving crime beyond “a reasonable doubt,” suspicion equal to “probable cause” is enough. Your property is guilty until you prove it innocent. With civil forfeiture, owners do not have to be charged with a crime, let alone be convicted, to lose homes, cars, cash—or dogs. This effort to sharpen our understanding of dispossession is preeminently a legal project. It takes its meaning and garners its effects from the division between value and disregard, things and persons, human and nonhuman. In analyzing how legal reasoning has historically contributed to literal expropriation, I examine the generally invisible nexus of animality, human marginalization, and juridical authority.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document