But civil forfeiture isn't criminal punishment, and doesn't have the features for which that protection exists. It technically isn't, but the intent is to give

But civil forfeiture isn't criminal punishment, and doesn't have the features for which that protection exists. It technically isn't, but the intent is to give the government options to punish criminal behavior and criminal organizations without having to meet the same standards of proof or respect the same set of rights they would under criminal law. Traditional civil law deals with breaches of contract and torts where someone has been harmed and needs to be made whole, not the government attempting to maintain order. Civil asset forfeiture is fundamentally "getting a conviction here would be too hard, let's take their stuff instead". Most people talking about the burden of proof are misusing the term, but the protections guaranteed to a criminal defendant are reduced or absent in civil asset forfeiture. Using civil law in this manner should give us pause, as there are good reasons for the limitations and guarantees of criminal law.