Well let's see. I favor asset forfeiture in robbery and burglary cases.
For example, if a bank or house or 7-11 has been robbed of $2000, and the "suspect" is caught with $2000 on him, I don't believe that money should be used by the "suspect" to fund his lawyer or used by him for any other reason.
Hmmmm. That makes sense, doesn't it? But, when you think about it, that's not much different than the drug cases, is it?
But asset forfeiture for prostitution? That's really Mickey Mouse. What else is there? Asset forfeiture in RICO cases. OK with me.
Look, google up The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000. There've been a number of changes made that people aren't even aware of.
Also, each state has their own asset forfeiture laws. Some states don't even do it.
Yeah, it's different because the money found on the guy is clearly evidence. In drug cases the authorities go far beyond seizing evidence. A better example would be if the DA seized the thief's bank account, if he had one, or perhaps some of his furniture.
However, I think we are getting away from the basic issue, which, to me, is state power over the citizenry.
I don't disagree with you on the need to lock up drug dealers. I am not in favor of giving the feds such an awesome tool as asset forfeiture, though.