I would have no problem with forfeiture if it only applied:
1) To the property of individuals or groups actually found guilty of a crime, and
2) To property that was actually instrumental in the commission of the crime (for example, a vehicle used for smuggling, but not one where the owner is merely caught for possession), or purchased from the proceeds of crime.
Your current asset forfeiture laws are clearly not compatible with a country that claims to believe in freedom, property rights, and the due process of law.
_________________
I have a huge amount of problem with forfeiture. If someone does a crime, charge them, convict them and make them serve their time and or pay the fine. But taking stuff from people like this, it smacks of an out of control government.
When I see cops traveling in late model cars I realize that someone had their stuff taken by the government at gunpoint. If it can happen to them it can happen to anyone.
The only thing that I find strange is that the article describes asset forfeiture as being something that isn’t generally known about. Have people not been paying attention? I’ve been coming here for a long time, but I knew about it before I came here. I’m pretty sure PBS’s Frontline has done at least one story about it, if not more.