Operation Pipeline

The legal infrastructure of the War on Drugs has easily turned every moment of one’s life a moment of possibility for arrest. The leniency on policemen and their reasons for suspecting someone of a crime is partially was is causing this outbreak of incarcerations. Although there are times when the police are correct in their assumptions, their reasons for making these assumptions are out of line. Methods of fighting drug crime, such as Operation Pipeline, may be effective, but not a hundred percent necessary. Michelle Alexander mentioned that “once upon a time,” it was common knowledge that unless a policeman had probable cause, they had no reason or right to stop and search someone (Alexander 63). However, in light of the War on Drugs and the creation of Operation Pipeline, this notion is no longer so common. In Terry vs. Ohio, it was decided …show more content…
After it was explained in class and examples were given, I was able to form some kind of opinion about it. At first, I thought the idea was not completely unreasonable. If someone commits a major crime, they have submitted themselves to be held in prison, therefore they have consequently lost the things that they owned. However, whenever Dana and Dr. Feltmate was used as example to explain the Asset Forfeiture, my opinions somewhat changed and now I am on the fence about the idea. The example given was that if Dana or Dr. Feltmate committed a crime, but had families, it would be unfortunate that their property would be taken by the government, without the option of their family gaining the property. This is when I had second thoughts about the idea. If for some reason, I were to commit a major crime, I would want my things to be given to family, not used for other purposes and to the benefit of the government. However, it was my unethical decision to commit a crime, therefore I have consequently lost my rights to own