The judicial system of the United States is concerned about eradicating crimes in the county. Sometimes, new laws and ordinances are passed to ensure that the federal and state police operate within the limits and scope of their duties. Again, amendments are made to ensure justice and fairness while serving the citizens. This paper discusses the limiting of the federal and state power to seize private property from the offender, the impact of the decisions on the police, the training needs assessment to fulfill the amendments, and the plan to eradicate crimes in the urban areas.
Limiting Court Decision on Property Seizure
In February 2019, the Supreme Court in America introduced a rule and decision that was going the change the way federal police operate and conduct themselves. The new ruling by the Supreme Court prohibited the state from holding onto the properties, including money, cars, houses, and other forms of items utilized during the crime. The civil penalty is considered a popular way of raising revenue for the country (Liptak & Dewan, 2019). However, the practice was misused by police. The new court decision is expected to open a door for legal arguments when the value of the property to the crimes was out of proportion. The court ruled that the Eighth amendment bars federal police from using excessive fines on the criminals.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
According to justice, fines are the only form of punishment that is known to bring revenue to the country. Thus, they need to be measured according to the penal objectives of the retribution and deterrence. Excessive fines play a dark role in the nation. The law was introduced after police in Philadelphia was collecting a total of $5.6 million annually from a house that was believed to have been used in committing crimes (Lopez, 2019). The seizures were resulting in excessive fining of the crime offenders, thus paying more than the maximum fines for the crimes committed.
Impact of the Regulations on Police
Typically, the regulation helps the police to remain accountable, fair as well as just in line with their practices. The federal and state police are expected to stop seizing properties from people even in incidences where they cannot give pieces of evidence of the property being used in the committing crimes. In this case, the police are expected to adhere to the 8 th Amendment through the 14th Amendment that states that no state has the authority to deprive a person the rights to liberty, property, and even to life (Rodd, 2017). Generally, police are required to obtain properties with proof and those whose value can equal the fine imposed on the kind of crimes committed. The practice is expected to cause challenges in terms of income collected. Nonetheless, it is an excellent way to uphold the broader constitutional protection of the people’s property right hence justice.
Training Need Assessment
The desired outcome of the new law is for the police to promote justice by upholding the 8 th through the 14 th Amendments. Police can effectively implement the regulation is they understand the difference between properties to be seized and those that are to remain with the owners. Again, they need knowledge of property values to determine the actual value of the confiscated properties and ensure that it matches the crimes. In this, they need training on property valuation to ensure that they do not practice excessive fining on the offenders.
Plan for reducing Crimes in the Urban Areas
Goal: To eradicate crimes in Urban Areas
Actions: Monitoring crime activities in regions
Enabling the ex-prisoners to sustain themselves
Promoting community involvement
Action Plan: The federal and state police will be responsible for implementing the actions to endure the achievement of the goals. First, they will enhance monitoring of criminal activities through the use of the public surveillance cameras to determine criminals, and once the crimes take place. Secondly, it is necessary to ensure the sustainability of criminals after leaving prisons. Providing training skills and job opportunities can promote the financial well-being of criminals (Kondo et al., 2018). Often, criminals are considered offender in the community even after serving their sentences. As a result, they fail to secure jobs hence going back to crime. Finally, the police should ensure community cooperation for free communication between the community and the officers (Zondi, 2012). The collaboration ensures that police are aware of the criminals from the community information hence managing and regulating their operations in the region.
Impact of Less Law
Fewer court decisions, statutory changes, and laws are likely to allow police to continue treating citizens involved in criminal activities unfairly. It is against the law to seize the property of an individual illegally. On the safety of the community, less law implies that there are fewer regulations to monitor and guide people on not engaging in criminal activities. Few rules give people the liberty to engage in crimes.
Conclusion
Limiting the power of the police in seizing properties is meant to minimize the cases of excessive fines through the seizure of the belongings. For the police to successfully implement the law, they need to be educated on how to value the properties and ensure that offenders and fined accordingly. Regarding crime control, implementing strategies like guaranteeing employment for the ex-offenders, and using the surveillance cameras to monitor crimes as they occur can be useful.
References
Kondo, M. C., Andreyeva, E., South, E. C., MacDonald, J. M., & Branas, C. C. (2018). Neighborhood interventions to reduce violence. Annual review of public health , 39 , 253-271.
Liptak, A. & Dewan, S. (2019). Supreme Court Limits Police Powers to Seize Private Property. The New York Times. Accessed from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/us/politics/civil-asset-forfeiture-supreme-court.html
Lopez, G. (2019). Why the US Supreme Court’s new ruling on excessive fines is a big deal. Vox. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/20/18233245/supreme-court-timbs-v-indiana-ruling-excessive-fines-civil-forfeiture
Rodd, S. (2017). Should Police Be Allowed to Keep Property Without a Criminal Conviction? Pew . Accessed from https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2017/02/08/should-police-be-allowed-to-keep-property-without-a-criminal-conviction
Zondi, C. Z. (2012). Community participation in community correction operation and offender reintegration. International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education , 3 (3), 763-771.
