Rhetorical Analysis Example of Civil Forfeiture

Civil forfeiture refers to the process where law enforcement officers take personal assets from people whom they suspect to have involvement in a crime. Forfeiture equals handing over the belongings of a person to law enforcement systems. It comes in two forms; criminal forfeiture and civil forfeiture. Unlike civil forfeiture, criminal forfeiture involves forfeiting assets once a person has been convicted. The foundations of criminal forfeiture are straightforward and easy to enforce unlike those of civil forfeiture which can be controversial. It was developed as a tool to do good, but that is no longer the case because some individuals are exploiting it as an avenue to advance personal agendas. This paper analyzes civil forfeiture based on Sarah Still’s Taken.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Civil rights in the United States often raise some controversies in some constitutional regulations. That occurs mostly when the issue in question is related to law enforcement. The article written by Sarah Still on civil forfeiture is an example of the many little-known legislations that are widely used in the country. Some legislations in the Constitution are known to have controversy because they provide coverage on one element at the cost of the other. As a tool, civil forfeiture is effective in fighting crime. It expedites law enforcement, and outcomes are reached much faster when some of the issues that can slow down the process are out of the way. Well, that is one side of it. What if a nefarious individual were to use this for personal gain? Such is the basis of Taken, which explores the tenets in civil forfeiture and its flaws.

The problems in civil forfeiture stem from the basis of societal norms. Ethics, logic, and general morality in society are the core tenets that challenge the applicability of civil forfeiture. The author provides an example of cases where civil forfeiture has been taken advantage of by law enforcement officers. Whether or not officers exploit the loopholes in the system is arguable considering they do it in a manner that is per their line of duty. The issue can be broken down more effectively for a better understanding of civil forfeiture because it is still applicable and cannot be removed from the Constitution.

The financial side of civil forfeiture is the root of all the evil that is done using the tool. Who would turn away from easy money? But then they are not civilians. Their line of work requires integrity, honesty, and impartiality for they are police officers. They should abide by the rule of law. Ethics dictate that other people’s belongings should be respected. In this case, the police are required to protect what is collected under civil forfeiture until what is taken is officially declared to remain with law enforcement. Law enforcement officers should preserve civil rights and adhere to the rule of law. What they do in Tenaha is the exact opposite. From what the author mentions, law enforcement officers in Tenaha seem to be friendly when one comes around asking about the “Tenaha Operation.” David Guillory coined the term Tenaha Operation to include occurrences of misusing civil forfeiture in the region.

It is widely known amongst citizens that they should comply with police officers and law enforcement officers to facilitate smooth operations. This arrangement is made to protect the citizens from any dangers they may face. It also helps eliminate threats to the safety of civilians and national security. Terrorism and drug trafficking are all heinous crimes. Those who commit them are the ones that are mostly targeted by specialized agencies to help reach quick solutions. Civil forfeiture is a regulation that was designed to be a tool for use to deal with the people and elements that facilitate crimes and threaten national security.

In its current form, the tool has been useful in fighting crime. Even so, that very took has brought with it some damaging effects. The Constitution is clear in the application of civil forfeiture in fighting crime. From a logical point, the procedures are clear. The problem is with law enforcement officers who, instead of using it correctly, choose to advance personal agendas using this tool. Civil forfeiture had very positive results at the time of it was enacted. The device tempts officers to use it off the records to their benefit because its financial attractiveness cannot be ignored. Simply put, the law enforcement officers have technically formed a ‘cartel’ using civil forfeiture as a cover for their operations.

There is logically asking civilians to turn over their belongings to law enforcement officers to allow for smooth enforcement of the law. Once proven guilty and that the belongings were not used to committing crimes, law enforcement officers should return belongings to owners. The path officers choose one that is not highlighted in the Constitution. They instead make it hard for civilians to collect their assets and instead make it easier for them to give up on them. That they make civilians document their forfeiture makes it even more baffling. Anything done in the line of duty for police officers needs to be fully and formally verified. What officers who take advantage of this tool do is only to document the outcome. Nefarious officers use informal and sham documentation for when they take belongings and make it look like it is formal.

More often than not, anyone checking cases related to the Tenaha Operation covers looks into the direct consequences. They pay attention to the assets from law enforcement using the tool. Like development, these occurrences leave lasting implications on people. For instance, James Morrow’s life took a sudden turn for worse situations following arrest and forfeiture of his belongings. The intentions of having things confiscated in the name of civil forfeiture are clear; to facilitate smooth enforcement of the law. Doing that while violating civil rights is wrong. The assets seized in some cases represent value for whom they belong to. People and those who depend on them end up suffering because of the careless and self-serving interests of law enforcement officers who exploit the tool. James Morrow worked for all the money he lost. His money was taken from him without going through all the processes required to declare it as having been confiscated under civil forfeiture.

Conclusion

In a nutshell, civil forfeiture as a tool in fighting crime is also a loophole. Officers meant to use it in their line of duty are now taking advantage of it for personal gain. Those who set up a ‘cartel’ in law enforcement to exploit civil forfeiture made it bard and complicated for people who would want to go up against the system. The ‘cartel(s)’ are set up to include most of the parties involved in law enforcement. The ‘cartel(s)’ makes the whole law enforcement process cyclic whenever would pick a legal fight to try and recover their belongings. Expertise is required to outsmart the racket put in place to hold complainants away from the assets under civil forfeiture. Even defense attorneys were part of the rackets. Those who were not would choose not to pick fights with the cartel. Beyond expertise, courage was also required to go into a legal battle with law enforcement over civil forfeiture.