&gt;&gt; I think it&#x27;s worth noting that civil asset forfeiture, while controversial, isn&#x27;t necessarily evil in itself, if done with a high bar to seizure.<p>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.<p>That said, the <i>Economist</i> didn&#x27;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&#x27;t have much to do with civil forfeiture at all.<p>A little over a year ago I wrote a comment discussing the history of the constitutionality of civil forfeiture that might be interesting:
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=8582155" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=8582155</a>