I guess we're defining "forfeiture" differently. Most certainly, I would require a conviction through due process before this is allowed.
I also think that people convicted of property crimes should be forced to restore the victim's property at 3 times the value taken or destroyed. Steal a $20,000 car? You owe the victim $60,000 upon conviction. If that takes hard labor in prison for 10 years, so be it.
Overview
Civil forfeiture occurs when the government seizes property under suspicion of its involvement in illegal activity. Such a proceeding is conducted in rem, or against the property itself, rather than in personam, or against the owner of the property; by contrast, criminal forfeiture is an in personam proceeding. For this reason, civil forfeiture case names often appear strange, such as United States v. Eight Rhodesian Stone Statues,1 and the property owner is a third-party claimant to the action while the property is the defendant. This form of forfeiture is codified in 18 U.S.C. §§ 981, 983, 984, and 985, as well as in 21 U.S.C. § 881.
The government does not have to charge the property owner with any specific crime in order to seize his property, and must prove only by a preponderance of the evidence that the property is legally forfeitable. After property has been seized, the burden of proof shifts to the owner, who must prove that the property was not involved in nor obtained as a result of illegal activity.
While the government views civil forfeiture as a powerful tool against the drug trade, organized crime, and political corruption, it is often criticized as an unconstitutional exercise of government power, in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments, and as against a fundamental element of due process: the presumption of innocence.