# Civil Asset Forfeitures **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 13, 2017, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-asset-forfeitures/796263 "2017-09-13T18:51:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 16
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2017, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-asset-forfeitures/796263/16 "2017-09-13T22:57:08Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > **Bricker** , I understand that you haven’t stated an opinion either way about Civil Asset Forfeiture and how it’s applied, but I am curious about whether you think it has been applied reasonably on the state level. There was a recent IMHO thread about this. > [@How is civil forfeiture a thing?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-civil-forfeiture-a-thing/791804/108): > > I’m not so persuaded by your disparate impact worries, but you’re right that I oppose the [civil forfeiture] laws wholeheartedly. From either prince or pauper, the state should not take property without a better showing than mere preponderance of the evidence. At a minimum, we should require a criminal conviction. The whole idea of forfeiture is to take property because it was used in a crime, and now the state wants to do that even when it can’t prove the crime happened. From the same thread: > [@How is civil forfeiture a thing?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-civil-forfeiture-a-thing/791804/70): > > Civil forfeiture without and prior to a conviction is an abomination. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-asset-forfeitures/796263)._