[Sacho]

We've gone from "the kid is actually guilty", to "well if the kid is innocent it would be trivial to get his money back", to "well if the kid is innocent it's not trivial to get his money back but because it was a national case there's bound to be someone willing to do the work for him out of altruism".

While these may all be true, on your way to be right you've discarded everyone who doesn't get media spotlight, is innocent, and still has their assets forfeited.

No one was disputing your original point anyway - yes, there are ways to get your money back - which you shouldn't have lost in the first place. That's the whole problem with these half-assed, poorly thought-through laws - they are intended to only be applied to criminals, so by assumption the person they are applied to is a criminal, so it's no big deal if they have to jump through ridiculous, possibly life-ruining hoops to go back to their normal life.

Another point that isn't really discussed - after sacrificing the civil liberties of people who have to go through civil forfeiture, is there a worthwhile effect on the drug lords and drug runners, or is this a case like DRM?

[oh_sigh]

I think the problem is that you are arguing whether the law should exist or not - I was only arguing that, given that the law exists, it is possible to reacquire your money if it was legally earned.

[prutschman]

It's possible to reacquire your money less legal fees. That's an important distinction for anyone who tries to get their money back.

[oh_sigh]

Ok, and, again, in this case, the person had pro bono lawyers available to take the case.

[EdHominem]

In this one case someone else is paying the bill as charity so clearly there is no problem at all...