Do we want the law to be this inflexible? It sounds good initially, but I would rather the starving man have the bread he stole gently taken by the police and returned to the owner, and sent on his way (hopefully with some help), than to be arrested. Without civil forfeiture, this turn of events would require the police to either arrest the starving man, or break the law themselves to take the bread. CF is a way for the police to use their discretion to right situations, and to prevent additional harm to victims (such as preventing property from being destroyed, used or spent after the criminal is apprehended but before conviction).

What about the case of stolen property, and the misuse of hiding of it prior to conviction but after arrest? It does the victim little good if the property stolen is disposed of or hidden after arrest.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for massive reform for the law in these cases, I just think there are cases where it's useful, and careful consideration should be given as to whether we need to keep some portion of it intact, or remove it altogether, and the consequences of that choice.

Edit: Okay, ignore the stolen bread and kid with beer examples. They aren't well thought out, and are distracting from the other examples and and points, which I think deserve attention. I'm only leaving it here because I'm loathe to remove something people are responding to, even if it reflects poorly on me. :/