I see this as a multilayer problem with no quick fix.
Just my .02 but I think there are too many laws on the books, general law abiding public doesn't realize passing another law won't fix a problem, and politicians spend more time trying to get reelected then doing anything worthwhile, many times laws are passed not realizing the law will have a negative effect too.
1. Too many laws lead to problems like who has time to enforce them? and disrespect for the law in general.
2. The general public thinks passing a law will stop the criminal from bad behavior, after all they wouldn't break the law....they need to realize the criminal is already breaking the law to begin with so what is one more law broken?
3. Politicians now spend more time now with concern over reelection that they want to appease the "squeaky wheel" voter and get laws passed quickly without examining the need for the new law to begin with much less look at possible negative side effects.
Civil Forfeiture sounds like a good idea when used against a known criminal with evidence of that crime, like the drug lords and Ponzi schemers etc. that it was probably intended to punish for wrongdoing. The problem I see is that you now don't have to be convicted of a crime to have your property taken away from you.
This does kind of make me think about other areas like since the O.J. Simpson/ Nicole Brown domestic/murder case many jurisdictions issue protective orders banning the accused aggressor from their house and other possible restrictions before ever being convicted of a crime? How is that done constitutionally? And consider that piece of paper really won't protect a victim if the person is already willing to break the law on assaulting a person?