Honestly, I think we should just burn (the value of) the assets seized (after trial, appeal, &c, of course).
Yes, it would mean stepping up and funding things currently funded with proceeds from seizures, but it would remove significant incentive to overreach.
Destroying resources just because criminal touched them seems pointless. Removing financial incentive for abuse seems reasonable, but that does not mean resources should be destroyed. They can be routed to the uses which have no connection with law enforcement and do not provide abuse initiative. US government has so many needs one can surely find one.
In case it wasn't clear, I don't mean physical destruction of real things. I mean auctioning the physical, and then destroying the received money electronically.
With a fiat currency, it's not actually destroying anything. I'd rather no one feel it as part of their bottom line, or there will be pressure. Certainly, moving it far from law enforcement would be an improvement, but I think destruction is better.
But why it is better if the same resource could be used to make something good - e.g. build a hospital for the poor or feed some starving people, etc.?
Because I don't want anyone looking at a spreadsheet and saying, "Oh shoot, we could actually meet our targets if only the police would seize another $10 million..."
Putting that person further away from the police probably improves things, as I said, but better that we just build such hospitals and fund such social programs as we actually need, and not rely on people doing bad things (either the people whose stuff is being confiscated, or the police confiscating property of innocents) to make it happen.
Note again that at this scale cash isn't really a resource - it's a claim on resources. Destroying it doesn't destroy those resources, it releases the claim which winds up sort of distributed over other dollars.
because incentives distort actions. if what is seized is destroyed of value, then there is no longer any motivation to view seized property as some sort of fund raising drive.
That's why separation of incentives from actions is important. If the police has no control over the money and can not benefit from it, they do not have incentive for abuse. The hospital which will get the money may have, but they won't have the means.
Yes, it would mean stepping up and funding things currently funded with proceeds from seizures, but it would remove significant incentive to overreach.