The Glade 4.0

If you don't want people to avoid associating you because you are a felon, don't be a felon in the first place.

If we had a clear criminal code, I'd have less intellectual objection to this particular philosophy. We don't, though.

I guarantee with enough knowledge about each Glader, I could find at least 3 federal crimes for which to prosecute them, and I'm not even a lawyer. Imagine what a lawyer could do.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

People who are familiar with the United States Constitution will note that a great deal of the Bill of Rights focuses on the rights of criminals and alleged criminals. This is because, unlike future generations, the founders had a keen understanding that a government can make a criminal out of anyone it chooses, at any time, merely be passing the correct law.

As DFK points out, due to the Byzantine legal system under which we now live, we are all felons without even knowing it. Therefore, it behooves us to secure the rights of felons.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

No, you could not find 3 federal crimes to prosecute everyone under. This assertion has been bandied about the internet with no support whatsoever for ages.

As for this nonsense about the founding fathers, the sole reason for their concern with the rights of criminals was to make sure that whoever was in power did not either overtly or covertly criminalize opposing viewpoints.

The main problem here is excessive worry over what the government can or does do. If the government made everyone a felon, it would impoverish itself and have no one left to enforce these laws. Then it would get overthrown. What would behoove us is to stop fearmongering.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Not bandied about for ages, not asserted without support.

Here is the article about the book which makes the claim: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 60842.html

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

So someone please tell me which three felonies I have committed or which three felonies any of us have committed.

_________________
"Said I never had much use for one, never said I didn't know how to use one!"~ Matthew Quigley

"nothing like a little meow in bed at night" ~ Bruskey

"I gotta float my stick same as you" Hondo Lane

"Fill your hand you son of a *****!"

Ditto, I have heard that several times on this board and am curious.

_________________

Let's use a hypothetical, because I don't know enough about you to find a felony for sure (if I knew more, I'm sure I could find one).

Within this hypothetical, we're going to presume you love animals. You believe in animal rights. You want animals protected. So you give money (material support) to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA.

PETA gets to do many and various things with this money, because you've donated to them without conditions, so the money goes into their general fund. From this general fund, they in turn give out funding to various groups, funds, efforts. One such group is the Animal Liberation Front, or ALF.

ALF has been designated a terrorist organization, and in 2005 was put on a Department of Homeland Security watch list for domestic terrorism.

You have, therefore, committed a federal crime of supplying material support to a terrorist organization under the PATRIOT ACT.

Did you also use the telephone, telegraph, or internet to make this donation, or perhaps send your check via US Mail? Tack on wire fraud or mail fraud charges, one count per transaction.


That's just one easy example from a non-lawyer. There are so many, many more.

Seriously, everybody needs to read Three Felonies a Day by Harvey Silverglate. He has much better (and more frightening) examples.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

In addition to the Silvergate book that Elm and DFK refer to, I'd recommend this article:

You're (Probably) A Federal Criminal by Judge Alex Kozinski and his law clerk (starts on page 43 of the linked Google book).

And these two posts from the legal blog, The Volokh Conspiracy:

http://www.volokh.com/posts/1248668478.shtml

http://www.volokh.com/2013/02/05/perils ... -criminal/

These quotes from the VC posts sum up the problem nicely:

The root of the problem is that "criminals" are not permitted to vote. We can find a felony that you are guilty of, and once we do that you are a "criminal" with no voice in the political process. Oh, but you still have to pay your taxes. If that's not enough, because you are a "criminal" everyone will dismiss your story because you obviously deserved whatever happened to you. You are now powerless to prevent others from being abused in the same manner.

But it could never happen to you, because our government wouldn't do that to people. So keep trusting the government. That sort of thing can't happen in the United States, only in other countries that don't have our freedoms.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

The surest way to look like an idiot is to condemn another man's decisions without knowing for a fact how you would make such a decision.

Really, the question comes down to whether the justice system is punitive or rehabilitory (Google says that isn't a word, but if it ain't, I ain't caring.) Is the purpose of our justice system to punish a criminal or to teach him not to be a criminal?

Generally speaking, evidence would come out stronger on the earlier, and as such, you did the crime, now you get to live with failing every background check ever. That being said, the police do occasionally understand that the criminal justice system is not a place for people who would be rehabilitated. I can attest to that personally.

Everyone does things that they aren't proud of, and would prefer not to have those things shouted from the mountaintops. Would you appreciate having to tell any prospective date that you cheated on your last significant other? Probably not. But then, if you've cheated before, how is someone to believe you're reformed?

There's no way to answer those questions. Ultimately, the law protects the perceived just from the perceived unjust. It doesn't protect non-criminals from criminals, it just manipulates the perceptions of people who may or may not be either.

So I had a long post typed out and ready to send but decided not to. I live my law-abiding life here and do not believe that I could possibly be commiting three felonies a day when all I do is stay at home, do housework, play EQ, and read email and news. If any of my donations to charity are going somewhere where I didnt want it to go, how is that my fault or problem? When I specify a certain place for my money to go it should be going there.

_________________
"Said I never had much use for one, never said I didn't know how to use one!"~ Matthew Quigley

"nothing like a little meow in bed at night" ~ Bruskey

"I gotta float my stick same as you" Hondo Lane

"Fill your hand you son of a *****!"

Legally, it doesn't really matter where you "wanted" the money to go when you give to them. For example, it's almost routine for people in the US to be found guilty of providing material support to terrorists for giving to Palestinian charities that are subsequently found to be funding militants with the money.

Do you have any examples of this happening?

_________________

The cited sources have such examples.




No worries, it's just the internet.

See, here's the point. When regulation has reached the level that we could find a crime you're committing just by knowing enough about you, that's bad.

When we also make all of our laws and regulations strict liability statutes in which "ignorance of the law is no defense," that's bad. Many laws today are structured this way, and the law doesn't care if you don't think it is "my fault or problem?"

That's the whole point of what I'm trying to get across: the state of the justice system in our country is "bad," largely due to the laws and regulations on file.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

The Volokh conspiracy site contains no examples, just statistics about non-violent drug offenders and that the ones who are violent were violent because of the war on drugs. (and if you don't know that using/selling drugs is a crime then DERP on you)

In the Name of Justice appears to be theoretical and hypothetical. The citations (in the applicable chapter) are to editorials and untested judicial opinions.

_________________

The legal system is designed so that if they really want to arrest you, they'll find something to get you on, since everyone is at least unknowingly breaking the law, regularly. You're at the mercy of the legal system.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Three Felonies a Day by Harvey Silverglate.

Not really sure what the resistance is to this topic. Perhaps we don't like the notion that the police state has gotten this powerful?

Let's look at some other potential crimes, then (not necessarily all felonies):
Have you ever taken alcohol or cigarettes across state lines?
Forgot to report something on your taxes?
Sped near a military base?
Tore a tag off a mattress?
Resold a mattress?
Sold a house in which you glossed over some of it's material flaws?
"Fudged' a resume for a federal job application?
Purchase unpasteurized milk?
Use (or recommend the use of) a prescription medication for any off-label use?
Do any of the above via phone, internet, or telegraph?
Do any of the above via mail?

Just kinda brainstorming here, but I've heard estimates of there being over 10,000 potential crimes in the Federal Register. Is it so hard to believe they can find some to throw at you?

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Yes, because that sort of thing doesn't happen in the United States. We're all law-abiding citizens.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

What do you mean by "untested judicial opinions", Hop? The cites include multiple Circuit Court and Supreme Court cases, as do, I would assume, the cited journal articles.

Beyond that, the chapter itself discusses the application of multiple federal laws, is written by an expert on such laws (i.e. a federal circuit court judge), and often cites to example cases where a conviction was obtained. I'm not sure how much more persuasive a source could be! In any event, though, my point isn't necessarily to say that over-criminalization is absolutely, undeniably a serious problem (though I believe it is). Rather, I highlighted that Kozinski chapter and the Volokh articles (written by law profs and linking to other articles and books on the issue) simply to show that this is more than just unsubstantiated internet bluster; it's a well-known and frequently discussed issue in the legal world.

What you are running into is the idea that felons are "the other". Being a felon automatically makes someone a "bad person" and therefore we can not be felons. It doesn't matter if it's true. We will not believe it until we get convicted of a felony, whereupon it will be too late for our opinion to matter because we will then be a "bad person" and will deserve whatever consequences follow.

That's really the whole point of "giving tools to prosecutors." That way, it doesn't matter whether you have the right person. You can convict them of something, put them in jail, and never have to face reprisal for any wrongdoing.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Realistically, you still have the Fourth Amendment protecting you. They don't just have to find something, they have to find enough to get a judge to sign a warrant. While they probably could do it, it would be time consuming and expensive, so they'd need a really damn good (from their perspective) reason to do it at all. Then on top of that there's the risk the media could take notice, and they definitely don't want that if they're trumping up charges. That's why people facing 20+ years for rape charges often get a plea bargain for only probation, the prosecutor just wants a win and definitely does not want public or media scrutiny of an actual trial when the evidence is really flimsy or contrived.

Since the cop thread is near the top, this is also why I think people who want to get rid of stuff like Qualified Immunity for police are either insane or have an ulterior motive they're not mentioning. Unlike your average citizen, they have no expectation of privacy while working, plenty of individuals who want to nail them for no other reason than they're police, and plenty of prosecutors that will jump at the ability to advance their career by nailing a "corrupt cop." Some of the more rabid anti-government types would probably be willing to commit actual crimes to find evidence against police, and such evidence would still be admissible. (it's only inadmissible if it's an agent of the government that commits a crime to acquire the evidence) Even a "good" cop wouldn't last a week before having racked up enough felonies for a life sentence.

Tearing the tag off of a mattress you have bought is not a felony. It is a felony to tear off the tag before it reaches a consumer.

I think that is where the '2nd hand mattress' comments were headed in previous posts...

I mean, who buy second hand mattresses anyway? But yea, selling one (with a missing tag) could potentially be illegal?

I pointed out that not everything listed was a felony, but they are all crimes.



Selling a new mattress without tag is a Federal crime.

Selling a used mattress may be a crime, depending on tag presence, state, whether you're crossing interstate boundaries, etc.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine