Analysis Of TAKEN: Under Civil Forfeiture By Sarah Stillman

The article “TAKEN: Under civil forfeiture, Americans who haven’t been charged with wrongdoing can be stripped of their cash, cars, and even homes. Is that all we’re losing?” written by Sarah Stillman, she teaches at yale, a writer for the New York Times, and has been awarded multiple awards for her writing. Under the civil forfeiture or civil seizure the police are allowed to seize assets from drug deals or other criminal activities and use that money to supplement their department 's budget. Ms. Stillman makes a persuasive argument with rhetorical devices and when one analyzes the text it becomes apparent that she is arguing that some police departments budgets have been cut causing them to rely on these claims to make up for the lack of …show more content…
She uses stories from people who have been affected by this law along with facts from credible sources. “For real-estate forfeitures, it’s overwhelmingly African-Americans and Hispanics,” Rulli told Sarah Stillman. Currently there is too much animosity between the police and citizens. Police shootings recently have made this gap even wider. Movements like Black Lives Matter are gaining steam because of police misconduct. People feel like the police are abusing their power and this law reinforces that belief. Minorities are affected the worst by this law, they are targeted by the police. Two white sons whose father was the coach of the Philadelphia Eagles were convicted of having a “emporium of drugs”. Their emporium didn’t get seized by the police. Even though whites aren’t targeted, they are still persecuted through this law. The police don’t look good to the public, they have made some major fumbles and no one is being held accountable for their mistakes. Her argument uses the rhetorical devices very well and allows for her to prove her point of civil forfeiture laws need to be changed and the police are now …show more content…
These laws were originally created to allow increased resources to be available to drug task forces, but now these laws have become a means for the police to steal from citizens they are protecting. Americans are recognizing that this is a problem and the laws is starting to be changed, funds that a acquired through this practice can no longer be put towards bonuses or unessential office items like a popcorn machine. These laws are going to be hard to remove, but they are ruining people 's lives, hard to dispute in court and law enforcement are poorly using this law in an abuse of power. Stillman’s argument addresses the positives of the law, but she thinks that the police are unable to avoid misconduct so this law must be changed or removed. Her use of rhetoric and viewing both sides makes you compelled to agree with