Using Civil Remedies for Criminal Behavior: Rationale, Case Studies, & Constitutional Issues

Front Cover
DIANE Publishing, Sep 1, 1994 - 79 pages
0 Reviews
Advocates the use of civil remedies by police & prosecutors to combat a range of criminal activities including drug dealing, car theft, hate violence & possession of firearms by the mentally ill. Details of the procedure, organization, staffing, program evolution, accomplishments, advantages & Constitutional issues of seven case studies are presented, as well as discussions on making effective use of civil remedies, finding appropriate legislation, involving the community & other agencies, & using civil statutes in a Constitutionally defensible manner. Comparative table, end notes & glossary.
 

What people are saying - Write a review

We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.

Contents

IV
1
V
2
VI
3
VII
4
VIII
5
IX
6
X
9
XI
11
XLIV
37
XLV
39
XLVI
40
XLVIII
41
XLIX
42
L
44
LII
45
LIII
46

XII
12
XIII
14
XV
16
XVII
17
XVIII
18
XIX
19
XXI
20
XXII
21
XXIII
22
XXIV
23
XXV
24
XXVI
26
XXVII
27
XXX
29
XXXII
30
XXXV
31
XXXVI
32
XXXIX
34
XLI
35
XLIII
36
LIV
47
LV
48
LVI
49
LVIII
50
LIX
51
LX
52
LXII
54
LXIII
56
LXV
57
LXVI
58
LXVII
59
LXIX
60
LXX
62
LXXI
63
LXXII
65
LXXIII
69
LXXIV
70
LXXV
71
LXXVI
76
LXXVII
78

Common terms and phrases

Popular passages

Page 19 - All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.
Page 74 - ... the provisions of an order which, either in form or substance, was mandatory in its character. Imprisonment in such cases is not inflicted as a punishment, but is intended to be remedial by coercing the defendant to do what he had refused to do. The decree in such cases is that the defendant stand committed unless and until he performs the affirmative act required by the court's order.
Page 40 - ... by such owner or landlord or to one theretofore made by him and not prosecuted diligently and in good faith. Proof of the ill repute of the demised premises or of the inmates thereof or of those resorting thereto shall constitute presumptive evidence of the unlawful use of the demised premises required to be stated in the petition for removal.
Page 19 - Any individual whose exercise or enjoyment of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state, has been interfered with, or attempted to be interfered with, as described in subdivision (a), may institute and prosecute in his or her own name and on his or her own behalf a civil action for...
Page 71 - Similarly, the same might be said of an owner who proved not only that he was uninvolved in and unaware of the wrongful activity, but also that he had done all that reasonably could be expected to prevent the proscribed use of his property 27 ; for, in that circumstance, it would be difficult to 27.
Page 46 - State law — (A) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of such violation; and (B) any of the person's property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, such violation.
Page 75 - The rule is one of reason: Where a defendant previously has sustained a criminal penalty and the civil penalty sought in the subsequent proceeding bears no rational relation to the goal of compensating the Government for its loss, but rather appears to qualify as "punishment...
Page 37 - All persons within the jurisdiction of this state have the right to be free from any violence, or intimidation by threat of violence, committed against their persons or property because of their race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, political affiliation, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, or position in a labor dispute.
Page 72 - First, in each case, the seizure has been directly necessary to secure an important governmental or general public interest. Second, there has been a special need for very prompt action. Third, the State has kept strict control over its monopoly of legitimate force: the person initiating the seizure has been a government official responsible for determining, under the standards of a narrowly drawn statute, that it was necessary and justified in the particular instance.

References to this book

All Book Search results »

Bibliographic information