The different burdens specified in civil vs. criminal proceedings do make sense. No argument here. It's a stretch to then convert criminal penalties into civil

The different burdens specified in civil vs. criminal proceedings do make sense. No argument here. It's a stretch to then convert criminal penalties into civil ones via the forfeiture process. Read this passage and tell me if this sounds like anything resembling due process: > A month-and-a-half later police came back—this time to seize their house, forcing the Sourvelises and their children out on the street that day. Authorities came with the electric company in tow to turn off the power and even began locking the doors with screws, the Sourvelises say. Authorities won't comment on the exact circumstances because of pending litigation regarding the case. > Police and prosecutors came armed with a lawsuit against the house itself. So a few things. One, there was no civil court judgement authorizing this. The police decided on their own to take the house. Two, the value of the judgement is literally "how ever much this house is worth." Three, the government sued the house itself. That doesn't even make sense. A house is an inanimate object. People should be sued, not stuff. If the government believes they have a legitimate civil complaint, they're welcome to file it in court. The defendants and the government can then argue their cases, and a judge will use the appropriate legal standards to render a decision. In these cases, the "judgement" is enforced first, and the targets (now without financial resources) must show beyond a preponderance of evidence that they're innocent.