Should anyone not convicted of a crime be subject to asset forfeiture?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No. It should not be allowed ever.

Thankfully this is now the law in Minnesota, though alas the only other state that has done so is North Carolina as well as DC.

[Ebowed]

Obviously not.   It's sort of something you'd expect from 1940s cartoons.

[Türkisblau]

BRTD please post a poll that does not have results that can be easily predicted.

[Redalgo]

Not under the economic system in place today, no. If private properties were socially owned without the government taking responsibility for their direct control, however, we'd need a way to relieve managers of their privileges to manipulate assets on behalf of the People to allow for their reassignment to other, more promising parties. It may apply to people who pollute or otherwise defile the environment, executives who do not lead their firms well, people who have several dwellings but only have one in use at a time, etc. If it concerns eminent domain in forcing people to relinquish lands and homes, for example, to make way for a construction project favoured by the state I'd be firmly opposed.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes, if there is enough evidence for a trial and the assets are either directly related to the crime committed (see embezzlement, tax fraud or bribery) or could be used to interfere with the course of justice (corrupting judges or stuff like that). The assets can be returned as soon as the defendant is found not guilty.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     No, nor should anyone convicted of a crime be subject to such either, except to pay a fine in a specific amount issued by the court.

[The Mikado]

Of course they should, in limited situations, especially revolving around people through no fault of their own ending up owning stolen property. That $2,000 watch you got for $300 from the shady guy on the corner can go back to its rightful owner but you didn't do anything wrong when you bought it.

[politicus]

Of course they should, in limited situations, especially revolving around people through no fault of their own ending up owning stolen property. That $2,000 watch you got for $300 from the shady guy on the corner can go back to its rightful owner but you didn't do anything wrong when you bought it.

Not familiar with US laws, but being so grossly negligent would be illegal in a lot of countries.