Overcriminalization
Gary Fields and John R. Emshwiller write in the WSJ of "mens rea," a Latin term meaning a "guilty mind," which refers to what they call a "bedrock principle of criminal law" -- the notion that people must know that they've done something wrong before they can be found guilty.
Well, welcome to the brave new world:
This legal protection is now being eroded as the U.S. federal criminal code dramatically swells. In recent decades, Congress has repeatedly crafted laws that weaken or disregard the notion of criminal intent. Today not only are there thousands more criminal laws than before, but it is easier to fall afoul of them.As a result, what once might have been considered simply a mistake is now sometimes punishable by jail time.
...Back in 1790, the first federal criminal law passed by Congress listed fewer than 20 federal crimes. Today there are an estimated 4,500 crimes in federal statutes, plus thousands more embedded in federal regulations, many of which have been added to the penal code since the 1970s.
...In 1998, Dane A. Yirkovsky, a Cedar Rapids, Iowa, man with an extensive criminal record, was back in school pursuing a high-school diploma and working as a drywall installer. While doing some remodeling work, Mr. Yirkovsky found a .22 caliber bullet underneath a carpet, according to court documents. He put it in a box in his room, the records show.
A few months later, local police found the bullet during a search of his apartment. State officials didn't charge him with wrongdoing, but federal officials contended that possessing even one bullet violated a federal law prohibiting felons from having firearms.
Mr. Yirkovsky pleaded guilty to having the bullet. He received a congressionally mandated 15-year prison sentence, which a federal appeals court upheld but called "an extreme penalty under the facts as presented to this court." Mr. Yirkovsky is due to be released in May 2013.
via Instapundit
While I agree that case is stupid, it is my understanding that ignorance of the law is not a legit defense?
NicoleK at September 28, 2011 3:13 AM
Nicole -
That is only reasonable when the law can be known. Given the vast number of regulations (many conflicting) and the fact that even those tasked with enforcing the regulations can't understand them kind of destroys that.
Not that it stops them prosecuting us.
Either we need to drastically simplify the laws, or we are going to start seeing jury nullification used more frequently as a defense tactic.
brian at September 28, 2011 5:01 AM
@brian
There is legislation being crafted to outlaw nullification as we speak......although the way the judge hands down their instructions today has rendered it technically obsolete.
nuzltr2 at September 28, 2011 8:00 AM
The statement that you can't fish in Minnesota without breaking the law has been in my family for over 50 years.
We elect people to make and pass new laws. Too bad we don't elect them to repeal laws.
Dave B at September 28, 2011 8:04 AM
You can't outlaw jury nullification. Not guilty means not guilty.
Sunset all laws.
MarkD at September 28, 2011 8:22 AM
it is my understanding that ignorance of the law is not a legit defense?
True.
However, if you have to be a lawyer to understand what is and isn't criminal, we need better laws. The laws need to be plain and obvious on their face that behaviour X is criminal, but that behaviour Y is not.
See, if I had a bullet in my possession, I wouldn't have felt that I might be in violation of firearms laws.
I R A Darth Aggie at September 28, 2011 8:44 AM
If you want to be excused from a jury, you just need to make sure that the clerk of court knows that you favor jury nullification. They hate nullification and you will be dismissed.
Maybe that explains why I haven't had a jury summons for 10+ years...
I R A Darth Aggie at September 28, 2011 8:46 AM
I thought "mens rea" or "guilty mind" meant not that ones knows or not knows (ignorance is not a legal defense) but rather that the "intent" was to cause harm. The intent needs to match up to action.
If i was shooting a gun at a gun range and I didnt see someone running through my lane, got in front of me who as a result was shot by one of my bullets (by accident) and died, I could still have "killed" them but could not be accused of murder since the criteria for "mens rea" was not present - reason being, when i picked up the gun to shoot it - I did NOT intend on killing someone.
Intention and knowledge are different.
Feebie at September 28, 2011 9:54 AM
Anyone remember that episode of Farscape where 90% of a planet were lawyers?
lujlp at September 28, 2011 11:01 AM
Only the federal government would call possessing a bullet "possession of a firearm." What was the guy going to do, kill somebody by flinging the bullet at him/her?
mpetrie98 at September 28, 2011 12:57 PM
He could have held it with a pair of pliers and hit it with a hammer.
lujlp at September 28, 2011 2:40 PM
Anyone remember that episode of Farscape where 90% of a planet were lawyers?
Yeah. There was also an ep of Sliders (early on while it was still a fun show) where the pre-title teaser had them on a planet with 80+% of the population with law degrees. The professor was going crazy because he was hungry but couldn't get a burger due to lacking things like his "Salmonella waiver," and a bunch of other forms and permits.
Sadly.. we seem to be heading there.
Miguelitosd at September 28, 2011 4:08 PM
"I thought "mens rea" or "guilty mind" meant not that ones knows or not knows (ignorance is not a legal defense) but rather that the "intent" was to cause harm. The intent needs to match up to action."
As I understand it (and I will admit to not being the expert), it means that you intended to commit a crime, or acted with reckless disregard as to whether or not you were committing a crime. If you, as a reasonable law-abiding citizen, had no reason to think that you were committing a crime, then mens rea is not met. And, from what I recall, this principle goes back to English common law.
Cousin Dave at September 28, 2011 7:06 PM
While Dane A. Yirkovsky was being carefully prosecuted, a Sonic drive-in in Barnwell, SC was the scene of a double murder, as a disgruntled thug, free despite an earlier crime involving the underage possession and use of a gun in a crime, expressed himself once again.
No one would work there afterwards. The property is vacant still.
The Federal crime of committing a felony with a gun is selectively prosecuted.
Radwaste at September 28, 2011 7:48 PM
Leave a comment