Sorry, but the purpose of our legal system isn’t to ensure we somehow get our pound of flesh come what may. If a crime was committed and that forms the basis for the injury — be it murder, maiming, or lesser mayhem — and the accused stands trial but is found not guilty that should be the end of it, there should be no more civil recourse after that. Otherwise we are asserting civil liability for a crime committed without an actually finding of guilt for the commission of that crime.
Civil asset forfeiture is a cop acting as judge, jury and executioner, right there.
Huge conflict of interest behind asset forfeiture and cops.
But see that's not quite right. It's without an actual finding of guilt for the commission of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The criminal standard is the extraordinary standard. Unless we want all civil cases to be held to this same standard we have to allow civil cases to be heard even when a criminal case has failed to convict. If every civil case had to be held to a beyond reasonable doubt standard it would be almost impossible to win one.