I'm not really sure why civil forfeiture places the burden on owners. Kind of defies the logic of innocent until proven guilty.
Any right given to authorities will inevitably be misused, sooner or later.
A quick fix would be to use the proceeds for charity or to pay down the national debt. That way the incentives are atleast reduced somewhat.
The operative question would seem to be, how does one write a blank check to law enforcement to seize property with no judicial oversight or lawful reason required, but then make them promise by law to give it away rather than simply use it for their own personal/departmental reasons?
If you want to empower someone to be a thug and take peoples stuff, you have to recognize that Robin Hood was actually a work of fiction and consider that maybe nobody is going to actually do that. Apparently in Utah, everyone ignored the new law -- police, prosecutors, judges, the press, and even the voting public who passed the original ballot initiative, failed to hold anyone to account when the next election time came around.
Furthermore, I don't think it's true (at least not per the article) that a civil forfeiture proceeding puts a burden of proof on the state - it seems to be that the owner has an opportunity to petition for appeal, which if not taken, amounts to a forfeit by default.