U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: Too Many Laws Turn Innocents into Criminals
Source:
The Heritage Foundation
URL Source: http://www.heritage.org/research/co ... -turn-innocents-into-criminals
Published: May 26, 2010
Author: Edwin Meese III
Post Date: 2016-10-15 12:03:04 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 9782
Comments: 40
America is in the throes of “overcriminalization.” We are making and enforcing far too many criminal laws that create traps for the innocent but unwary, and threaten to turn otherwise respectable, law-abiding citizens into criminals. Consider a few examples from the new book “One Nation Under Arrest”: • A 12-year old girl arrested and handcuffed for eating one French fry on the Washington subway system. • A cancer-ridden grandmother arrested and criminally charged for refusing to trim her hedges the way officials in Palo Alto, Calif., were trying to force her to. • A former high-school science whiz kid sent to prison after initially being arrested by FBI agents clad in SWAT gear for failing to affix a federally mandated sticker to his otherwise legal UPS package. • A 67-year-old grandfather imprisoned because some of the paperwork for his home-based orchid business did not satisfy an international treaty. I could go on, but all these stories share one thing in common — they are about typical Americans. Most involve a man or woman who works hard and pays taxes, cares for family members and is a good neighbor. Perhaps above all, this person strives to stay on the right side of the law. This typical American holds deep, often intuitive beliefs in basic principles about American government, including a belief that, if you do what’s right, you have nothing to fear from your own government, and certainly not from the criminal-justice system. But the typical American’s deeply held beliefs about the freedoms he cherishes and the fundamental principles of his government are no longer as well founded as they once were. Today, he is far more vulnerable than ever before to being caught up in a criminal investigation and prosecution — and to actually being convicted and punished as a criminal — for having done something he did not even suspect was illegal. Criminal law has changed in the last 50 years. Once criminal law was about criminal acts that everyone knew were inherently unlawful (like murder, rape and robbery). Limiting criminal punishment to conduct that is inherently wrongful restricted governmental power in two important ways. First, and most important, it kept the range of governmental power small. Having few criminal laws and a short list of things not to be done limited the scope within which government can exercise its authority. Second, a limited criminal law served a teaching function. It reflected the beliefs and understandings common to the vast majority of our citizens — the very citizens who were subject to the criminal law. Today, the criminal law has grown as broad as the regulatory state in its sheer size and scope. In 1998, an American Bar Association task force estimated that there were more than 3,000 federal criminal offenses scattered throughout the 50 titles of the U.S. Code. Just six years later, a leading expert on overcriminalization, John S. Baker Jr., published a study estimating that the number exceeded 4,000. As the ABA task force reported, the body of federal criminal law is “so large . . . that there is no conveniently accessible, complete list of federal crimes.” If “ignorance of the law is no excuse,” then every American citizen — literally, every single one — is ignorant and in peril, for nobody can know all the laws that govern their behavior. A just criminal-justice system, in the best sense of the word “just,” has a twofold goal. One is to see that criminals are prosecuted, convicted and appropriately punished. The other is to ensure that those who are innocent are either not prosecuted in the first instance or, if mistakenly prosecuted, are not convicted. Today, our system fails the second of those goals. Much is at stake for our freedoms and the freedoms of future generations. The problem of overcriminalization merits extensive study and debate by legal experts and policymakers, as well as average Americans, whose fundamental liberty is most at stake. Many constructive changes could make our justice system fairer and more just, and improve its ability to deter wrongdoing and punish real criminals. Taking the steps necessary to ensure that American criminal law once again routinely exemplifies the right principles and purposes will require much work, but the alternative is to distort the American criminal justice system, and jeopardize the American people. Edwin Meese III was U.S. attorney general under President Reagan, and is chairman of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 21.
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
That happened in 2000. 16 years ago. Do you also dig up dirt on Trump? Eating or drinking in the Metro system is illegal. What are you saying -- a 1 a 12 a 12-year-old is too young to understand such a simple policy? Or are you saying we should make an exception just for her?
You really haven't been paying attention - hundreds if not thousands of of other examples have occured since then. Eating or drinking in the Metro system is illegal. What are you saying -- a 1 a 12 a 12-year-old is too young to understand such a simple policy? Or are you saying we should make an exception just for her? Yeah - one frigging french fry - good grief! I suppose the author is just another leftard cop hater who is soft on crime. You never fail to amuse.
Yeah – good grief! Once again, you fail to tell the whole story and understand the situation. It was not just one girl and one french fry. There had been numerous complaints about people eating and drinking on the Metro by those who find having to watch, smell and hear other people eat intolerable. Consequently, the Metro Transit Police conducted a week-long crackdown on violators and she was arrested for eating the after-school snack and violating the Metro’s regulation. Over the years: "We've been doing our best to crack down on people who are consuming food and beverages in our stations because we get so many complaints about it," said Lisa Farbstein, a Metro spokeswoman." The 17-year old girl was a regular rider on the transit and she knew the rule….yet she chose to completely ignore the rule and therefore she faced the consequence. Sounds like one of your kind….eh, Deckard? Screw the rule, do whatever you want to.
Meese appears to believe that overcriminalization is a real problem. He must be a pot-smoking anarchist who wants to kill cops, right queerbait? Edwin Meese III was U.S. attorney general under President Reagan, and is chairman of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation When three missing fish can land someone in jail on felony charges, reform is needed. "There is no one in the United States over the age of 18 who cannot be indicted for some federal crime,” retired Louisiana State University law professor John Baker told the Wall Street Journal in July 2011. “That is not an exaggeration.” In Ayn Rand’s magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged, Doctor Floyd Ferris, one of the book’s main antagonists, told Hank Reardon, a proud producer who had earned the ire of crony special interests and government officials, that “there’s no way to rule innocent men.” “The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them,” said Ferris. “One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.” Fiction has become reality. The United States now has some 300,000 federal regulations, and this long spool of burdensome and complex red tape grows every year. What’s more, there are about 4,500 federal criminal statutes on the books carrying fines or prison terms for offenders. There are so many regulations and criminal statutes on the books that a civil-liberties expert and lawyer, Harvey Silverglate, thinks that the average American commits three felonies a day, and they often are not even aware they are breaking the law. That is, not until a federal agency begins an investigation and they are indicted. ******** Oh, that last article is from National Review, of course to you they are spreading propaganda and engaging in "yellow journalism". Why? Because you don't like the message.
No, because the examples used were cherry to be “tear-jerkers” and did not completely detail the events surrounding the situations. They were only used to elicit sympathy for the author’s agenda. That, sport….is yellow journalism. Something I greatly detest.
You must be joking - the story is completely factual and you're whining (again) because you don't like what was said in the article or how it was written. The agenda of National Review as well as the other sources I use is called the Truth. For someone who prides himself on being a "truthseeker", you're really pretty much a ranting hypocrite. Your "yellow journalism" schtick is getting tiresome.
There's the problem in a nutshell - too many "the law is the law" tattle-tales and punitive populist Gestapo snitches like you have decided to call the cops on every petty little event, whether it be unlicensed lemonade stands, front-yard gardens or seeing a kid walking to school by himself. I'm sick and tired of you nanny-state pricks telling others how to run their own lives. Too many lawmakers, and too many voters (like you) subscribe to the adage, “There ought to be a law.” That which is good should be mandatory; that which is bad should be banned. But, as Ronald Reagan once said, “Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.” That’s worth keeping in mind the next time we think about granting the government more power to regulate our lives. And it is worth remembering the next time some politician promises that he will get some law passed because it is for our own good. Meanwhile, muggers and purse snatches remain loose in the Metro system because of this poor use of police resources.
There's the problem in a nutshell The reality is that no passenger should find it necessary to sit next to a person eating surströmming or any of the other most putrid smelling foods in the world.
I thought the 12 yr old girl was eating a french fry. ???? I have never heard of putrid smelling french fry's. ???
It has happened a number of times that a french fry smelled like “dung” and dung certainly is a putrid smell. While there is no doubt a number of things you have never heard of, you may also have never had the usage difference between ignorant and uninformed explained. There is a difference, I will explain it for you. In ordinary usage one is considered a put down and the other is considered a statement of fact. So, I ask: Are you simply ignorant or just uninformed when you have never heard of something that actually exists? A serious question here, how bad can a french fry ever smell? You might feel puzzled why I would say this out of no where. This is because this afternoon, I tasted the most horrible, corrigible, terrble tasting french fry! right in a famous fast food chain. It's first letter is 'M' but I can tell you it is NOT McDonald. I guess this is the worst food experience in my whole life. The french fry (*note: Only 1 french fry out the whole packet) looks normal, but one bite and it emits the smell of drainage water/ unprocessed pig innards... This is really not a joke. It smells so bad that my sister can also smell it a few cms away. I immediately spit it out and rinsed my mouth. I showed it to a staff and when she smelled it, she was shocked by the pungent smell and threw it right back on the tray! - making this the 2nd ridiculous experience. I mean, when a customer complain to you about yr product, you dont give give a heck care look and throw the product back to the customer! Terrible customer service. In the end, I informed another staff about it and she too agree that it smells bad. but again, no explanation, no recovery. They are really lucky that I wasnt any mystery diner, otherwise, I would FAIL them utterly. Zero! Let me know if you want to know which fast food, which outlet. I will definitely let you know. Meanwhile, I am going to boycott them for the time being, I still cant forget that taste/smell right now. Posted by Angeline British chips are US french fries, with that in mind: Posted by Geordie Jester There are other situations with stories of “putrid” smelling french fries and chips, but I feel I have educated you enough for this evening. If the word educate makes you think of a child, you're not far off. It comes from the Latin word educare meaning to "bring up, rear.”
You pompous arrogant prick - ignorant and uninformed are synonyms. Ignorant: lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated. "he was told constantly that he was ignorant and stupid" synonyms: uneducated, unknowledgeable, untaught, unschooled, untutored, untrained, illiterate, unlettered, unlearned, unread, uninformed, unenlightened, benighted; Who the hell are you to lecture posters here and try to make yourself seem more important than you actually are? You're a legend in your own mind you self-aggrandizing bastard. Most of us here are sick of your condescending and "know it all" attitude. BTW, the correct comparison would have been "ignorant" and "stupid" You've once again shown that you are the latter of the two. Frigging fascist asshole - go report some kids in your neighborhood running a lemonade stand or something, effing Gestapo snitch.
Then would you use “ignorant” or “uninformed” to describe someone who never heard of something that actually exists? I am GATLIN….and don’t you ever forget that!!!
There are no replies to Comment # 21. End Trace Mode for Comment # 21.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest• A 12-year old girl arrested and handcuffed for eating one French fry on the Washington subway system.
#3. To: misterwhite (#1)
That happened in 2000. 16 years ago.
#7. To: Deckard (#3)
(Edited)
Yeah - one frigging french fry - good grief!
#8. To: Gatlin (#7)
#9. To: Deckard (#8)
…engaging in "yellow journalism".
Why?
Because you don't like the message.
#11. To: Gatlin (#9)
(Edited)
They were only used to elicit sympathy for the author’s agenda.
#12. To: Deckard (#11)
You must be joking - the story is completely factual
There is nothing to joke about.
The story is not COMPLETELY factual.
Here are the COMPLETE facts: Signs warning that it is illegal to eat or drink on the cars and in the stations are posted in the Metro system. Ansche Hedgepeth told the police she knew she wasn’t supposed to eat in the station but didn’t think she would get arrested. Commuter complaints about unlawful eating on Metro cars and in stations led McDevitt to mount an undercover crackdown on violators. A dozen plainclothes officers cited or arrested 35 people, 13 of them juveniles. Only one adult was arrested.
Your article presented only partial information to solicit sympathy. That is yellow journalism and I don’t give a shit that you think my pounding on your "yellow journalism" article is getting tiresome. As long as you continue to post it, I will continue to point out the errors.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=94999&page=1.
#13. To: Gatlin (#12)
Commuter complaints about unlawful eating on Metro cars and in stations led McDevitt to mount an undercover crackdown on violators. A dozen plainclothes officers cited or arrested 35 people, 13 of them juveniles.
#14. To: Deckard (#13)
Commuter complaints about unlawful eating on Metro cars and in stations led McDevitt to mount an undercover crackdown on violators. A dozen plainclothes officers cited or arrested 35 people, 13 of them juveniles.
Nope, that’s not the problem in a nutshell.
#16. To: Gatlin, Deckard (#14)
" no passenger should find it necessary to sit next to a person eating surströmming or any of the other most putrid smelling foods in the world. "
#18. To: Stoner, Deckard (#16)
(Edited)
I have never heard of putrid smelling french fry's. ???
The answer is 'tastes and smells like dung'
http:// blogelicious.blogspot.com/search/label/Customer%20Service. We were sitting down to a meal that included some oven chips (ok ok that was our first mistake !)....my wife thought she could smell something bad..... when she put a chip in her mouth she had to immediately spit it out. It smelled (and tasted (briefly)) absolutely vile ! It smelled like a mixture of sh&t and halitosis.
https://www.avforums.com/threads/rotten-chips.932980/. The Canary Clan is charged with the responsibility to search impartially for the facts or actualities of a subject or situation. It is eminently qualified to perform this charge by devoting considerable time, deep reflection, careful deliberation, and serious consultation to approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda. The Canary Clan has a commitment to respect precedent, fairness and a determination to faithfully present the facts.
Long live freedom of speech, long live the Canary Clan and God Bless America!
#20. To: Gatlin, Stoner (#18)
you may also have never had the usage difference between ignorant and uninformed explained. There is a difference, I will explain it for you. In ordinary usage one is considered a put down and the other is considered a statement of fact. So, I ask: Are you simply ignorant or just uninformed when you have never heard of something that actually exists?
#21. To: Deckard (#20)
(Edited)
Who the hell are you to lecture posters here …
Replies to Comment # 21.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]