FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2587804717> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2587804717 startingPage "289" @default.
• W2587804717 abstract "I. IntroductionCrime should not pay. This basic idea reflects both the moral intuition and the legislative purpose of numerous federal statutes that authorize the federal government to take away property involved in crime.1 Since the Founding, property involved in illegal conduct has been subject to forfeiture to the government.2 Early in American history, property forfeitures were restricted to just a few specific types of crime, and were accomplished through a civil in rem proceeding against the guilty property.3 The subsequent 200 years witnessed repeated expansions of the forfeiture power, culminating in 1970 when congress created a new type of forfeiture: criminal forfeiture, which is part of sentencing following criminal conviction.4 Now, instead of a civil proceeding against a particular piece of property, the government can forfeit property following a defendant's conviction without instituting a separate action.5 As a result of the government's enhanced forfeiture powers and the convenience of avoiding a separate proceeding, criminal forfeiture has become a ubiquitous part of federal criminal prosecution.6But if the underlying policy rationale for criminal forfeiture is that crime should not pay, courts imposing forfeitures must differentiate between property that is connected with criminal conduct and property that is not. This determination involves the so-called element of criminal forfeiture: the government must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a factual nexus between the property to be forfeited and the criminal conduct of which the defendant was convicted.7Courts have struggled to apply the factual nexus requirement with any consistency.8 Instead, they have adopted a patchwork of approaches that lack any articulable standard for how strong of a connection must exist between the property and the criminal conduct before forfeiture is proper.9 Of course, analysis of the factual nexus element is, by its very definition, a highly factspecific inquiry.10 But without some standard for determining when a connection is strong enough, the courts' myriad approaches to the factual nexus element invite the conclusion that the forfeiture statutes are being enforced arbitrarily, and are therefore unconstitutionally vague.11 To avoid the specter of unconstitutional vagueness and rationalize the current, disparate jurisprudence, this Note argues that courts should adopt a standard that requires the government to show that the contact between the property and the criminal conduct is more than incidental or fortuitous.12This Note has five parts. After this introduction, Part II discusses the development of property forfeiture law in the United States. Part III examines the disorderly approaches that courts have taken when determining whether a particular piece of property meets the factual nexus requirement. Part IV argues that courts should adopt a uniform factual nexus standard for all criminal forfeitures: something more than incidental or fortuitous contact between the property and the criminal conduct. Part V concludes by arguing that the proposed standard affords courts an opportunity to develop the criminal nexus jurisprudence in an orderly way.II. The Development of Asset Forfeiture law in the United StatesThe development of asset forfeiture law is, in large part, the story of the nation's evolving law enforcement needs and priorities.13 It tracks policymakers' evolving attitudes towards taking a person's property as punishment for crime-from hesitance to enthusiasm.14 This Part first traces the historical development of asset forfeiture in the United States. It then highlights two cases in which the Supreme Court defined modern criminal forfeiture and its constitutional limits. It concludes by providing a framework for the analysis of modern criminal forfeiture proceedings.A.Historical Development of Asset Forfeiture LawThe historical development of asset forfeiture-from the sparse use of forfeitures at the time of the Founding to the ubiquity of modern criminal forfeitures-revolves around two general themes: (1) the transition from civil in rem15 forfeitures to criminal in personam16 forfeitures; and (2) policymakers' evolving attitudes about the utility of asset forfeiture as a crime-fighting tool. …" @default.
• W2587804717 created "2017-02-24" @default.
• W2587804717 creator A5079087102 @default.
• W2587804717 date "2016-11-01" @default.
• W2587804717 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W2587804717 title "Nexus Rethought: Toward a Rational Factual Standard for Federal Criminal Forfeitures" @default.
• W2587804717 hasPublicationYear "2016" @default.
• W2587804717 type Work @default.
• W2587804717 sameAs 2587804717 @default.
• W2587804717 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2587804717 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2587804717 hasAuthorship W2587804717A5079087102 @default.
• W2587804717 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2587804717 hasConcept C17319257 @default.
• W2587804717 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2587804717 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W2587804717 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2587804717 hasConcept C202565627 @default.
• W2587804717 hasConcept C2777278149 @default.
• W2587804717 hasConcept C2909129154 @default.
• W2587804717 hasConcept C73484699 @default.
• W2587804717 hasConcept C83009810 @default.
• W2587804717 hasConceptScore W2587804717C144024400 @default.
• W2587804717 hasConceptScore W2587804717C17319257 @default.
• W2587804717 hasConceptScore W2587804717C17744445 @default.
• W2587804717 hasConceptScore W2587804717C190253527 @default.
• W2587804717 hasConceptScore W2587804717C199539241 @default.
• W2587804717 hasConceptScore W2587804717C202565627 @default.
• W2587804717 hasConceptScore W2587804717C2777278149 @default.
• W2587804717 hasConceptScore W2587804717C2909129154 @default.
• W2587804717 hasConceptScore W2587804717C73484699 @default.
• W2587804717 hasConceptScore W2587804717C83009810 @default.
• W2587804717 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2587804717 hasLocation W25878047171 @default.
• W2587804717 hasOpenAccess W2587804717 @default.
• W2587804717 hasPrimaryLocation W25878047171 @default.
• W2587804717 hasRelatedWork W1495135404 @default.
• W2587804717 hasRelatedWork W1506245542 @default.
• W2587804717 hasRelatedWork W154732124 @default.
• W2587804717 hasRelatedWork W1892594874 @default.
• W2587804717 hasRelatedWork W1924048385 @default.
• W2587804717 hasRelatedWork W2144900616 @default.
• W2587804717 hasRelatedWork W2191923371 @default.
• W2587804717 hasRelatedWork W2263962588 @default.
• W2587804717 hasRelatedWork W2341591587 @default.
• W2587804717 hasRelatedWork W2761224332 @default.
• W2587804717 hasRelatedWork W2894384492 @default.
• W2587804717 hasRelatedWork W2961515605 @default.
• W2587804717 hasRelatedWork W3033041806 @default.
• W2587804717 hasRelatedWork W3156307543 @default.
• W2587804717 hasRelatedWork W3158463550 @default.
• W2587804717 hasRelatedWork W59007576 @default.
• W2587804717 hasRelatedWork W1955308764 @default.
• W2587804717 hasRelatedWork W3124136965 @default.
• W2587804717 hasRelatedWork W3124871170 @default.
• W2587804717 hasRelatedWork W3124939033 @default.
• W2587804717 hasVolume "102" @default.
• W2587804717 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2587804717 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2587804717 magId "2587804717" @default.
• W2587804717 workType "article" @default.