The Constitutionality of Parallel Civil Forfeiture Proceedings and Criminal Prosecutions under the Double Jeopardy Clause in the United States

Autores

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v6i2.338

Palavras-chave:

Civil forfeiture, double jeopardy clause, ne bis in idem, prohibition of multiple punishments, excessive fines clause.

Resumo

In the Unites States the existence of statutes that allow to declare forfeiture of the property used in certain prohibited ways in civil proceedings without the general safeguards of criminal law is an extended legal practice. This parallel law enforcement system, however, has raised several constitutional discussions. One of these debates concerns the compatibility of the parallel system with the double jeopardy clause: does the double jeopardy clause bar the government from bringing a civil forfeiture proceeding against a defendant that has previously been convicted in a criminal court for the same offence? The aim of the present article is studying the evolution of the case law of the Supreme Court of the United States on the constitutionality of parallel civil forfeiture proceedings and criminal prosecutions under the double jeopardy clause, analysing the current state of the jurisprudence and its possible further developments. 

Downloads

Os dados de download ainda não estão disponíveis.

Biografia do Autor

  • Javier Escobar Veas, Universidad Mayor
    PhD Candidate in Legal Studies, Università Luigi Bocconi, Italy. LLM in Criminal Law, Universidad Diego Portales, Chile. Professor of Criminal Law, Universidad Mayor, Chile.

Referências

ABBOTT, Nelson T. United States v. Halper: Making Double Jeopardy Available in Civil Actions. BYU Journal of Public Law, v. 6, n. 3, p. 551-574, 1992.

ALBIN, Laurel. Notes: Constitutional Limitations of Civil in Rem Forfeiture and the Double Jeopardy Dilemma: Civil in Rem Forfeiture Constitutes Punishment and Is Subject to Excessive Fines Analysis. Aravanis v. Somerset County, 339 Md. 644, 664 A.2d 888 (1995), Cert. Denied, 116 S. Ct. 916 (1996). University of Baltimore Law Review, v. 26, n. 1, p. 155-199, 1996.

AMAR, Akhil, and Jonathan L. Marcus. Double Jeopardy Law after Rodney King. Columbia Law Review, v. 95, n. 1, p. 1-59, 1995.

ANIELAK, Eric Michael. Double Jeopardy: Protection against Multiple Punishments. Missouri Law Review, v. 61, n. 1, p. 169-184, 1996.

BATRA, Rishi. Resolving Civil Forfeiture Disputes. University of Kansas Law Review, v. 66, n. 2, p. 399-426, 2017.

BENNARDO, Kevin. Restitution and the Excessive Fines Clause. Louisiana Law Review, v. 77, n. 1, p. 21-45, 2016.

CARLTON, Christopher W. Cumulative Sentences for One Criminal Transaction Under the Double Jeopardy Clause: Whalen v. United States. Cornell Law Review, v. 66, n. 4, p. 819-841, 1981.

CLERMONT, Kevin M. Procedure’s Magical Number Three Psychological Bases for Standards of Decision. Cornell Law Review, v. 72, n. 6, p. 1115-1156, 1987.

COLGAN, Beth A. The Excessive Fines Clause: Challenging the Modern Debtors’ Prison. UCLA Law Review, v. 65, n. 1, p. 2-77, 2018.

GEORGE, W. David. Finally, an Eye for an Eye: The Supreme Court Lets the Punishment Fit the Crime in Austin v. United States. Baylor Law Review, v. 46, n. 2, p. 509-524, 1994.

GRANUCCI, Anthony. Nor Cruel and Unusual Punishments Inflicted: The Original Meaning. California Law Review, v. 57, n. 4, p. 839-865, 1969.

HENNING, Peter J. Precedents in a Vacuum: The Supreme Court Continues to Tinker with Double Jeopardy. American Criminal Law Review, v. 31, n. 1, p. 1-72, 1993.

HILDY, John. Fifth Amendment--Double Jeopardy and the Dangerous Drug Tax. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, v. 85, n. 4, p. 936-961, 1995.

JAMES, Fleming. Burdens of Proof. Virginia Law Review, v. 47, n. 1, p. 51-70, 1961.

JOHNSON, Barry L. Purging the Cruel and Unusual: The Autonomous Excessive Fines Clause and Desert-Based Constitutional Limits on Forfeiture after United States v. Bajakajian. University of Illinois Law Review, n. 2, p. 461-516, 2000.

KLEIN, Susan R. Civil in Rem Forfeiture and Double Jeopardy. Iowa Law Review, v. 82, n. 1, p. 183-274, 1996.

LIEBER, David. Eighth Amendment--The Excessive Fines Clause. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, v. 84, n. 4, p. 805-826, 1994.

LIMBAUGH, Stephen. The Case of Ex Parte Lange (Or How the Double Jeopardy Clause Lost Its Life or Limb). American Criminal Law Review, v. 36, n. 1, p. 53-86, 1999.

MARTIN, Janeice T. Final Jeopardy: Merging the Civil and Criminal Rounds in the Punishment Game. Florida Law Review, v. 46, n. 4, p. 661-686, 1994.

MELENYZER, Lisa. Double Jeopardy Protection from Civil Sanctions after Hudson v. United States. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, v. 89, n. 3, p. 1007-1046, 1999.

MERKL, Taryn A. The Federalization of Criminal Law and Double Jeopardy. Columbia Human Rights Law Review, v. 31, n. 1, p. 175-208, 1999.

NELSON, Caleb. The Constitutionality of Civil Forfeiture. Yale Law Journal, v. 125, n. 8, p. 2446-2518, 2016.

NOLAN, Patrick S. Double Jeopardy’s Multipunishment Protection and Regulation of Civil Sanctions after United States v. Ursery. Marquette Law Review, v. 80, n. 4, p. 1081-1116, 1997.

PIMENTEL, David. Forfeitures and the Eighth Amendment: A Practical Approach to the Excessive Fines Clause as a Check on Government Seizures. Harvard Law & Policy Review, v. 11, n. 2, p. 541-584, 2017.

REINHART, Douglas. Applying the Eighth Amendment to Civil Forfeiture After Austin v. United States: Excessiveness and Proportionality. William & Mary Law Review, v. 36, n. 1, p. 235-268, 1994.

RUDSTEIN, David. Double Jeopardy: A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution. Praeger, 2004.

SACKETT, Robin M. The Impact of Austin v. United States: Extending Constitutional Protections to Claimants in Civil Forfeiture Proceedings. Golden Gate University Law Review, v. 24, n. 2, p. 495-522, 1994.

SCHWARTZ, David L., and SEAMAN, Christopher B. Standards of Proof in Civil Litigation: An Experiment from Patent Law. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, v. 26, n. 2, p. 429-480, 2013.

SIGLER, Jay A. Federal Double Jeopardy Policy. Vanderbilt Law Review, v. 19, n. 2, p. 375-405, 1966.

SOLOMON, Matthew C. The Perils of Minimalism: United States v. Bajakajian in the Wake of the Supreme Court’s Civil Double Jeopardy Excursion Note. Georgetown Law Journal, v. 87, n. 3, 849-886, 1999.

SUBIN, Andrew L. The Double Jeopardy Implications of In Rem Forfeiture of Crime-Related Property: The Gradual Realization of a Constitutional Violation. Seattle University Law Review, v. 19, n. 2, p. 253-288, 1996.

SUMMERS, Brian L. Double Jeopardy: Rethinking the Parameters of the Multiplicity Prohibition. Ohio State Law Journal, v. 56, n. 5, p. 1595-1618, 1995.

TAIFA, Nkechi. Civil Forfeiture vs. Civil Liberties. New York Law School Law Review, v. 39, n. 1–2, p. 95-120, 1994.

VINES, J. Andrew. United States v. Ursery: The Supreme Court Refuses to Extend Double Jeopardy Protection to Civil in Rem Forfeiture. Arkansas Law Review, v. 50, n. 4, p. 797-840, 1997.

WATKINS, Amy E. Double Jeopardy Clause - Government May Bring Parallel Criminal Prosecution and In Rem Forfeiture Actions without Violating the Double Jeopardy Clause Survey: Fifth Amendment. Seton Hall Constitutional Law Journal, v. 7, n. 1, 287-292, 1996.

WELLS, Adam C. Multiple-Punishment and the Double Jeopardy Clause: The United States v. Ursery Decision. St. John’s Law Review, v. 71, n. 1, p. 153-172, 1997.

WOOD, Cynthia. Asset, Forfeiture and the Excessive Fines Clause: An Epilogue to Austin v. United States. Wake Forest Law Review, v. 29, n. 4, p. 1357-1404, 1994.

Publicado

27.06.2020

Edição

Seção

DOSSIÊ: Confisco, medidas cautelares patrimoniais, pretensão civil cumulada e garantias processuais penais

Como Citar

Escobar Veas, J. (2020). The Constitutionality of Parallel Civil Forfeiture Proceedings and Criminal Prosecutions under the Double Jeopardy Clause in the United States. Revista Brasileira De Direito Processual Penal, 6(2), 701-733. https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v6i2.338

Artigos Semelhantes

1-10 de 227

Você também pode iniciar uma pesquisa avançada por similaridade para este artigo.