Harima Curry’s college son was driving and was drawn to Satsuma of the Alabama State Police. After the search, officers discovered marijuana, arrested him and charged him with mild drug violations. And they seized the car as a case to arrest him. Curry herself had done nothing wrong, but the prosecutor filed a claim in civil court to obtain her car, claiming it was related to her son’s criminal conduct. It took her almost two years for her to ultimately dismiss the case.
Curry argued that people like her should be qualified for a fair and prompt hearing before the property is taken away by the government. It shouldn’t take two years to regain your property. In Curry’s case, when it reached the Supreme Court in the previous period, it was justice. Conclusion People like Curry had no legitimate procedural rights to such preliminary hearings, and a longer process is pending to consider claims of forfeiture. If the state seized the property, Justice did not oppose that it had to provide the notice and hearing. However, in the opinion of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, they ruled that due process provisions do not require a prompt or preliminary hearing.
The ruling emphasized “historical practices” as the judiciary has had many opinions in recent years. However, modern civil forfeiture practices are quite different from those historically used on form and scale. Judge Neil Golsch emphasized those “deep” deviations in agreeing opinions. Currently, those who are not even condemned for crimes can take away their property without trial, not without a harsh situation. Five judicialists raised genuine fairness concerns about such forfeiture practices. They also emphasized that the forfeiture hearing provided must be “timely.” And this due process protection is a very important point, as well as protecting important personal and government interests. Perhaps future rulings will address more directly the concerns of due process that can raise premature forfeiture practices.
These unfair practices are also a global issue. New technologies, for example, are creating due process challenges around the world. Curry had to wait two years for the hearing, but at least in the end he had the opportunity to present the case in person. In many jurisdictions, artificial intelligence (AI) systems are used in court to generate evidence such as facial recognition, whether it is a risk assessment used to predict outcomes. If these systems are “black boxes” and cannot be interpreted, the affected people, lawyers and judges have no way of understanding what they have done or correcting the error. Judges are beginning to face legitimate processes or fair trial claims that using these systems violates their rights.
Speaking of “timely” due process, it is not an accident that today’s concept of due process is central to many different and important issues and debates. Equity is important to us personally, and it is important to society. Today, people are flooded with complaints in courts, universities, police stations, prisons, print media and online that there is too little or too little due process. Our judicial system is particularly interested in protecting people from unfair treatment by the government. Still, major due process obstacles persist.
To give another example, the growing new questions about the fairness of common but unsuspected forfeiture practices, which have led to a very strong right to a long-established and commonly sued due process. It remains unreleased. In 1964, the Supreme Court ruled Brady vs Maryland Prosecutors are unable to withhold evidence of exemption from defense in criminal trials because it is fundamentally unfair. But Adam Gershowitz, Jennifer Teitcher and I recently Database During that time, of the five-year ruling reported Brady The claims have been sued nationwide, but serious claims are rarely relaxed. There is no appropriate system to correct serious prosecutor misconduct that leads to unfair trials.
Nor is there a great system to prevent the terrible mistakes of citizen forfeiture, bail hearings, and many other types of processes that affect people’s rights. Why is this? Perhaps because many of the affected people are poor and vulnerable. In a society with deep social and political divisions, unfair treatment of such people may not result in public debate, political issues, or much media coverage. This probably reflects a deeper concern that a legitimate process took for granted to protect us, resulting in self-satisfaction about the threat to a legitimate process.
My goals in my new book.”Advocate for a proper process“It’s about convincing people to understand the centrality of the legitimate processes of our lives, whether they’ve been caught up in the legal system or not. In the next blog in this series, we’ll be introducing social division and technology. Amplified by human psychology does not assess processes, but promotes expectations for that type of immediate satisfaction.
A timely and fair process for everyone should be important to us all. It is the basis of the rule of law. And, as Judge Kavanaugh emphasized in Curry’s case, legitimate processes help protect both the people and the interests of the government. The common foundation of legitimate processes is more important than ever, rehabilitating political polarization, cooling distrust in government, and protecting constitutional rights. The revival of the due process has been delayed for a long time.
