eCash would be better, but someone needs to be connected to the mint.

Guilty of what exactly? Facilitating drug dealing? Something we both know is going to occur whether the nanny state permits it or not. Ross made it safer for those involved, and even those not involved. Inner cities are war zones because drug deals must be done in person. He deserves a full pardon.

Traditional banking is governed by men with guns who depend on votes (for appearances). They always have recourse and motivation to intervene with private transactions. Not so much the case with bitcoin, which is extralegal for the most part and doesn't depend on them.

A very interesting philosophical and moral can of worms you just opened there. Bitcoin is governed by the protocol, so if the protocol permits anyone who can sign a valid transaction involving a given UTXO to another address, then it technically isn't a "crime". Morally I'm not sure I'd be able to sleep well at night if I unilaterally took what I didn't exchange value for.

As for the forgotten key case, I think the only way to prove you had the key at some point would need to involve the sender vouching for you and cryptographically proving they were the sender.

Those don't really mean anything when an attacker can eavesdrop on customer and employee comms and possibly redirect transactions (MITM).