To Live And Breathe Is Criminal
I've been worried and disgusted by the constant law-passing in this country. It's hard to have any idea what's legal and illegal anymore -- which makes it easy for any citizen to be arrested. If they can't get you for what they want to get you for, they can get you for some minor offense you had no idea was illegal.
Brian Walsh writes at InsiderOnline:
In the 109th Congress alone, federal legislators introduced over 200 bills proposing new or expanded non-violent criminal offenses, a number that does not include the bills proposing new or expanded criminalization concerning violence, firearms, drugs, pornography, or immigration violations. Many offenses in these bills would have duplicated existing federal criminal statutes or provided redundant penalties for crimes already punishable under state law.
Walsh reports that The Heritage Foundation and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers came up with a proposal for reform -- one that would Congress to deliberate over and provide factual and constitutional justification for every expansion of the federal criminal law:
For every new or modified criminal offense or penalty that Congress passes, it should report:•A description of the problem that the criminal offense or penalty is intended to redress, including an account of the perceived gaps in existing law, the wrongful conduct that is currently unpunished or under-punished, and any specific cases or concerns motivating the legislation;•A direct statement of the express constitutional authority under which the federal government purports to act;
•An analysis of whether the criminal offenses or penalties are consistent with constitutional and prudential considerations of federalism;
•A discussion of any overlap between the conduct to be criminalized and conduct already criminalized by existing federal and state law;
•A comparison of the new law's penalties with the penalties under existing federal and state laws for comparable conduct;
•A summary of the impact on the federal budget and federal resources, including the judiciary, of enforcing the new offense and penalties to the degree required to solve the problem that the new criminalization purports to address
•A review of the resources that federal public defenders have available and need in order to adequately defend indigent defendants charged under the new law; and
•An explanation of how the mens rea (i.e. criminal-intent or guilty-mind) requirement of each criminal offense should be interpreted and applied to each element of the offense.
Criminalization in the Executive BranchCongress should also require the federal departments and agencies to collect and report similar information on criminalization in the executive branch. This information should be compiled and reported annually and, at minimum, should include:
•All new criminal offenses and penalties that federal agencies have added to federal regulations and an enumeration of the specific statutory authority supporting these regulations; and•For each referral that a federal agency makes to the Justice Department for possible criminal prosecution, the provision of the United States Code and each federal regulation on which the referral is based, the number of counts alleged or ultimately charged under each statutory and regulatory provision, and the ultimate disposition of each count.
Congress should always be required to determine the true cost of new criminal offenses prior to enactment. The United States is already saddled with more than 4,400 federal statutory criminal offenses, tens of thousands of regulatory criminal offenses, an overworked federal judiciary with an ever-growing case load, and a crowded and expensive prison system. The federal government's failure to assess and justify the full costs of any new or modified criminal offenses or penalties is irresponsible.
via Overlawyered
I think this is a terrific idea -- and perhaps include a sunset provision for each new law too, even criminal law.
jerry at July 3, 2010 11:39 PM
Sure, but....
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 4, 2010 12:15 AM
As Ayn Rand said, the only power any government has is ultimately the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One makes so many things illegal that it becomes impossible for people to live without breaking laws.
Nick S at July 4, 2010 6:32 AM
So you think there needs to be federal prision time or simple assults and cat fights crid?
lujlp at July 4, 2010 6:39 AM
I jus' wanna punish people, Lou... I wanna punish people harshly.... Y'know.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 4, 2010 7:50 AM
Well then do what I do, tourture some random person to death every now and again.
lujlp at July 4, 2010 7:55 AM
"I jus' wanna punish people, Lou... I wanna punish people harshly.... Y'know."
We know, and we'd like to ask you to stop farting in the elevator.
jerry at July 4, 2010 9:01 AM
I've always been a fan of the idea that it should take 75% percent of congressmen to pass a law, but only 30% to repeal one.
Think about it.
Doug Stephens at July 4, 2010 11:37 AM
The spread of unjustified, arbitrary, and intrusive law (with big penalties) is part of the spread of such legislation "regulating, that is specifying, obligations in detail about all aspects of life.
Where are the plans supporting government action, in writing, so that they may be analyzed and criticized in a reasonable manner? Hiding the details is a political tactic, a fraud on the public, and the mark of tyranny.
Or, are Obama and the Democrats putting down all of the odd thoughts and biases that they picked up over the years.
We should ask loudly, how do our representatives know that their legislation will help, or solve anything? The legislative language is less important than the research that should show that the legislation will be of good effect.
Further, people are writing bills, in detail. Where are the research papers that support the writing of the bills? This research has to be there. We need to see it.
The Congress and Obama should proudly present their careful research that supports their proposed rearrangement of our country. Obama is a Harvard trained law professor. He should be up to the task.
Where is the policy paper, the research by Obama and Congress on healthcare reform and all legislation?
Andrew_M_Garland at July 4, 2010 12:32 PM
I cannot Google it up now...but I heard a recording from a talk show where the host was talking to a police representative (not sure exactly) about a proposed or new law banning cell phones use while driving...he asked her, isn't this already illegal under the distracted driving law? Her response was that no such law existed. He admitted that maybe he was mistaken, he had understood there to be one. First caller, gives the full location (Article X, Section Y, Pargragh Z). The officer is just dumb struck.
I guess the law is slightly different. In the existing one, you had to be affecting your driving. In the new one, simply using the phone is enough.
The Former Banker at July 5, 2010 12:44 AM
You know what's funny is when you see a cop breeze past you, yakkin' his/her cell phone...
This is why, when I'm called to jury duty, that I say I'm for jury nullification. If ignorance of the law is no defense, then doing whatever the law says is illegal must be obviously wrong.
Of course, I'm thinking that's also why I haven't received a jury summons in a number of years...
I R A Darth Aggie at July 5, 2010 11:25 AM
The Former Banker
I would love to see a clip of that. Could you please try to find it?
Suvorov at July 5, 2010 12:51 PM
I just looked again and still could not find it. I think it was in Washington State. There is a lot of stuff a new cellphone law going into affect in June. It was an audio only clip - I believe from a radio broadcast.
I did find this which I found interesting: http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2010/01/distracted_driving_laws_dont_s.html
apparently studies are showing the laws provide no reduction in accidents.
The Former Banker at July 5, 2010 3:46 PM
Leave a comment