>> I think it's worth noting that civil asset forfeiture, while controversial, isn't necessarily evil in itself, if done with a high bar to seizure. The civil

>> I think it's worth noting that civil asset forfeiture, while controversial, isn't necessarily evil in itself, if done with a high bar to seizure. The civil part of civil forfeiture is what keeps the bar too low. Criminal forfeiture requires a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt and the full panoply of criminal protections. That said, the Economist didn't quite get the story right. The underlying case was about whether and when the government can freeze access to property that would be criminally forfeiture in the event of a criminal conviction. So it really doesn't have much to do with civil forfeiture at all. A little over a year ago I wrote a comment discussing the history of the constitutionality of civil forfeiture that might be interesting: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8582155 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8582155