Page 95 - Freedom in the world_Neat

In the 1980s, however, the use of RICO increased as prosecutors and litigants were
attracted by a clause that tripled damages in civil cases for anyone found to have been
injured as a result of violations of the act. The broad interpretation of “racketeering
activity” allowed prosecutors to use the act in cases involving corporate mail and wire
fraud that were unrelated to organized crime in the traditional sense. A 1988 Supreme
Court decision in H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. found that RICO need not
apply only to Mafia cases, but could be used against legitimate corporations or
businesspeople. From the 1980s onward, RICO has been applied to white-collar criminals,
abortion protesters, and corrupt politicians. A RICO case brought against a business
employing illegal immigrants is currently in the federal courts. Civil libertarians have
objected to the expansive employment of the act, saying it has been stretched far beyond
its intended scope.

Property Rights

The Constitution’s Fifth Amendment protects the right to own and use private property,
stating, “No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Property rights are also protected by precedent inherited from English common law and by
state and federal laws that govern the use of private property.

Property rights are generally well respected in the United States. In most circumstances,
property owners may use, sell, and develop their property without fear of government
interference. However, the government may tax property to provide funding for public
programs, and in limited cases it can compel the sale of private property or circumscribe
the purposes for which the property may be used.

Property Takings. Under common law in America, the state retains an inherent power to
exercise eminent domain, the right to expropriate private property without the owner’s
consent, either for the government’s own use or for delegation to a third party who will
develop it for public use. Common law systems in the United Kingdom, Australia, South
Africa, Canada, and other countries also retain this right, which has historically been used
to provide public amenities such as roads, bridges, and military installations.
However, in a controversial 2005 ruling, Kelo v. City of New London, the Supreme Court
extended the government’s right to take private property for public use. Suzette Kelo, a
homeowner in New London, Connecticut, was notified by her city in 2000 that the area in
which she lived had been declared economically depressed, and that the city would be
buying her home and the homes of 115 of her neighbors as part of a comprehensive
revitalization plan. The homes would be razed to make way for a resort, a park, and
various new residential and commercial buildings. Kelo and several of her neighbors sued
the city, arguing that the plan misused eminent domain because the seized property would
benefit private developers rather than the general public. Under the provisions of
the Williams County v. Hamilton Bank ruling in 1984, the plaintiff in a property-taking case
must exhaust all other avenues of redress before appealing to the federal courts. After

Page 95 of 168