A sensible man might wonder, if a government had not the time or energy to prosecute all of the accused on its docket, perhaps said government has too many laws and is applying them too stringently.

Take a look at this guy. Anybody the state points him at is "a criminal." Even has the gall to actually admit that you ought to "prove your innocence" rather than the state having to prove your guilt. Because, you know the department needs stuff and you are gonna pay for it. Stealing from the public is easier than getting a budget approved am I right?

Probably has a party every anniversary of Waco.

If all criminal defendants had the balls to reject plea offers and demand speedy trials, the system would first grind to a halt, and then start back up prosecuting only those who actually threaten the welfare of others.

The court would just redefine "speedy trial" and you'd sit in jail for years.

The more cases the judicial system can get through the system, the more money they generate.
We now have low income earners indentured to the judicial system through their inability to pay court expenses and fines. They pay it out, miss a payment, and an arrest warrant is filed. More court hearings, court expenses, more fines into the system.
Some never get off that treadmill.
Low level misdemeanors are fined a certain amount, then hit with court costs. In Oklahoma Couty, that is $940. Then they are given probation for a year. They pay the DA's office for the probation at the rate of $50 per month. All they have to do is call in every month.
People arrested are charged with anything they can be charged with to up the penalties as a scare factor to make them take a plea bargain i.e. Resisting arrest for an open container.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The judicial system is more about revenue generation than administering justice. They use the premise of making the criminal pay for the judicial system. Asset seizure has gotten so flagrantly dishonest anyone with a large amount of cash must be a criminal drug dealer.

Nothing says the state can't freeze funds/assets until the conclusion of a case however...  Which might be an amicable middle ground.

Once the court system has control of funds, it is almost impossible to get them to return them.
I once bailed out a friend for a bar fight that he didn't start. I paid cash instead off getting a bail bondsman. The money was appropriated as the fine in a kangaroo, rubber stamp court hearing desspite having good legal representation. To appeal would have cost a great deal more.

I agree with both of you.  

Let's face it.  Once a person goes to jail, unless they're wealthy, they're fucked for life.   Very few people, that go to jail/prison, can overcome their criminal record.  They are marked for life.  So sentencing someone to a few years in prison, absolutely screws them, it's a life sentence of sorts.  And I'm not even talking about the psychological damage incarceration probably causes, I'm just talking about the "scarlet letter" a convict will carry with them for life.    

I'm of the opinion that the only criminals we should incarcerate, are those that have infringed on other individuals' rights to life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.  I think we should be very reluctant to incarcerate people for victimless crimes, and in general we should have fewer laws and prohibitions.  

So, yeah, I'm all for a much smaller government, and obviously the only way that can be achieved is by a huge reduction in the size and scope of the legal system, with fewer people in the legal professions, enforcement, regulation, and administration.

It is a fact that no jurisdiction outside some tiny county in Noplace, Nowhere has the time and resources to try every person arrested and charged. Imagine the gear-grinding halt if every person charged in Miami or New York or Los Angeles - and hundreds of smaller jurisdictions - demanded a speedy trial by jury within the time set by the rules in existence, or even within the longer (but not infinite) speedy trial under the Constitution.

As to forfeiture, I could see a procedure where a judge determined PC for forfeiture and then the forfeiture proceeding were deferred until resolution of the criminal case. Again: catastrophic failure as the police attempted to properly identify, store, and safeguard all the property.

The result of these practices would be that charges would be limited to serious offenses like robbery, rape, burglary, and murder, while lesser offenses would go by the wayside or a system of summary disposition and minor penalties would be instituted for lesser offenses. In other words, evil people would be promptly crushed and misdemeanants would be summarily beaten by their victims or quickly slapped by a rapid procedure.

It's difficult to do that even when you are innocent, if you believe the system will crush you, though. One of the founding principles of this nation is that power must be constrained, because the corrupt can and will use it as leverage against the citizens. IMO, it should always be costly and time consuming to prosecute. There should be no easy path or plea bargaining, because all too often it resembles a coerced confession. If men must be imprisoned or put to death, our society ought to be willing to pay whatever it takes. If we are not willing to do so, then that indicates to me that those men do not merit the prescribed punishment, and should not be coerced into pleading to some lesser offense so some prosecutor can score some points.

Umm ...

That's ACTUALLY how it works.

They seize the asset without bringing any charge of any kind against any person. The action IS against the property for the reasons posted.

That's a cop out for legitimizing theft.
The abuse is horrendous and many LE officials don't care who gets screwed if it puts money in their pockets.
http://oklahomawatch.org/2015/08/31/asset-forfeiture-do-police-seize-innocent-peoples-money/
http://oklahomawatch.org/2015/09/01/authorities-critics-face-off-over-asset-forfeiture/
http://oklahomawatch.org/2015/10/07/most-police-seizures-of-cash-come-from-blacks-hispanics/
Cliff notes - LE thinks that limiting asset seizures without charges is impugning the integrity of LE, most seizures come from blacks and Hispanics, LE will seize less than a thousand dollars if they find it.
Once again, the state senator mentioned in the articles came under investigation and resigned for campaign contribution irregularities. He is the only state senator to do so this year. Many of them are will not stand the special scrutiny that law enforcement gave this senator.

This.

That is an ok trade off to keep the power of .gov limited.

Then we need to get David Prater (Oklahoma County DA) of Erslund fame out of office.
You'll never convince me Kyle Loveless didn't get special attention from Prater's office because of the legislation he introduced limiting civil asset seizure laws in Oklahoma.