Comments by "" (@Green__one) on "MN Takes Small Step on Civil Asset Forfeiture" video.

And this is exactly the problem. The whole idea of "we need this law because we can't afford to operate without it" should have no relevance on it. They shouldn't be enforcing laws based on their own revenue needs, but instead based on the guilt or innocence of the people involved combined with the policing needs of the wider community. In my ideal world, police would never get to keep a cent of any forfeiture or fine. All proceeds from fines would go purely to victims of crime. This would remove the skewed incentive to prioritize enforcement of "profitable" crimes over those that are a priority of the population.
4
The problem is that the order is still wrong, it's still a seizure BEFORE proof of guilt. Doing it this way still allows the police and prosecutors to block your ability to defend yourself by taking away the money you need to use to pay for a lawyer. No money should ever be seized except after proof of guilt and as part of sentencing.
3
I disagree with your "how it should work" stance, because it still makes it easy for the police to rob you of your ability to defend yourself. We've seen cases where the police or prosecutors seize money pre-trial effectively making it impossible for the defendant to afford an attorney as they no longer have any money to pay the attorney. The only time money should be seized is as part of the sentencing portion of a trial. After guilt has been proved to the appropriate standard. Never before.
2
@erutherford I fully agree with you on civil asset forfeiture, however I think fines still have an important role to play. You are correct however that the way we do them now does not work. I think fines could still be okay, if all proceeds from fines went to victims of crime instead of to the police departments. That would remove the profit incentive from the police, well still allowing a punishment that does not involve incarceration.
1