La constitucionalidad de procedimientos de comiso civil y procesos penales paralelos bajo la cláusula double jeopardy en los Estados Unidos
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v6i2.338Palabras clave:
Comiso civil, cláusula double jeopardy, ne bis in idem, prohibición de sanción múltiple, prohibición de multas excesivas.Resumen
En los Estados Unidos la existencia de leyes que permiten declarar el comiso de la propiedad utilizada en determinadas maneras prohibidas en un procedimiento civil sin las garantías generales del derecho penal es una práctica legal extendida. Este sistema paralelo de cumplimiento del derecho ha suscitado diversas discusiones constitucionales. Una de estas discusiones dice relación con la compatibilidad de este sistema paralelo con la cláusula double jeopardy: ¿prohíbe la cláusula double jeopardy que el gobierno incoe un procedimiento de comiso civil en contra de una persona que haya sido previamente condenada en sede penal por los mismos hechos? El objetivo del presente artículo es estudiar la evolución de la jurisprudencia de la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos sobre la constitucionalidad de la incoación paralela de procesos penales y procedimientos de comiso civil bajo la cláusula de doble riesgo, analizando el estado actual de la jurisprudencia y sus posibles repercusiones.Descargas
Referencias
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.
Descargas
Publicado
Número
Sección
Licencia
A partir de 2022, los artículos publicados en el RDPP tienen una licencia Creative Commons Atribuição 4.0 Internacional. Los artículos publicados hasta 2021 adoptaron la licencia Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial 4.0 Internacional.
Cómo citar
