As Criminal Laws Proliferate, More Are Ensnared • Hacker News Board

Re: As Criminal Laws Proliferate, More Are Ensnared

#81

Post by arethuza » Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 10:41 AM UTC

sliverstorm wrote: post #54

vacri wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People aren't all that different, and generally want the same things. Besides, the US isn't that much freer than its first-world contemporaries. For example, although we in Australia don't have constitutionally-protected freedom of speech, the Press Freedom Index puts us as having more freedom of public speech than in the US, and both of us are well below most of the northern European states. http://en.rsf.org/press-…

Another possible explanation that occurs to me today: the punishments in America are greater. The guy who bombed Oslo and killed 80-some kids in Norway is allegedly facing a max of something like 25 years. He'd get multiple life sentences in America.

According to BBC radio this morning it is 21 years although I believe this can be extended for 5 years at a time if they believe he still faces a danger to society.

Re: As Criminal Laws Proliferate, More Are Ensnared

#82

Post by baha_man » Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 10:51 AM UTC

georgieporgie wrote: post #15

tuoru wrote: post #14

I have no problem whatsoever with a law that criminalizes stealing arrowheads, or other artifacts, from archaeological sites. I have no problem with laws that prohibit poisoning water, dumping chemicals, killing endangered species, or other environmental crimes. So, if this is proliferation, please sign me up for more. I know that these things were not crimes fifty years ago, but we are better off now for having thes…

The laws are poorly written if they don't differentiate between criminal intent versus perfectly reasonable ignorance.

Ignorance of a law is normally not considered an excuse for breaking it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat

Re: As Criminal Laws Proliferate, More Are Ensnared

#83

Post by a3camero » Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 1:53 PM UTC

brazzy wrote: post #8

lhnn wrote: post #4

Is this Hacker News? I suppose it might be tied to our theme by the story of the inventor. I think it's a shame that the US federal government has ballooned the way it has, and I believe it's a slap in the face of the Constitution. Discarding the concept of mens rea while maintaining more than 250,000 pages of regulation is malicious, and anyone supporting this movement is not someone who should be in political power…

What I don't understand (as a non-US-citizen, mind you) is how the fact that these are federal laws is relevant at all. It sounds to me like the problem is the number of obscure laws, the vagueness of the offenses, and the lack of mens rea requirement. Surely it would be just as bad if these were state laws (for the citizens of that state, anyway)? Or are there for some reason no state laws of that kind? If so, what…

IANAA (I am not an American) but it's an important aspect of the American legal system (as well as a political issue about state vs. federal government in the US).

Here's a chart that shows the differences between the state and federal legal systems: http://www.uscourts.gov/EducationalResources/FederalCourtBas... are many differences.

Re: As Criminal Laws Proliferate, More Are Ensnared

#84

Post by coolgeek » Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 2:36 PM UTC

Eliezer wrote: post #70

mkn wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't find that to be the most plausible mechanism for the proliferation of laws at all. More likely, it's an emergent property of the legal system in a democratic context that can probably be explained in terms of game theory. At any legislative junction, there's a cost or benefit associated with enacting or not enacting a law. Take the arrowhead removal example from the article. You're a lawmaker and you're faced…

I think it's a perfectly apposite quote. No, the proliferation of laws is not there as the result of an evil conspiracy to make everyone guilty of something. But sometimes you can clearly illustrate harmful side effects in fiction by postulating evil conspiracies that do things for the sake of the harmful side effects. Nobody knows the law anymore. Everyone is guilty of something. If the police want to arrest you, th…

Nobody knows the law anymore. Everyone is guilty of something.

This argument is reductio ad absurdum. The corpus of law bearing significant consequences for violators [1][2] is sufficiently small as to be almost intuitively understood by any reasonably educated person.

As a general rule, you're not going to be confronted by the full weight and force of the state for violating the jaywalking statute. Were you to be targeted for arrest for such a minor violation, it would be transparent to knowledgeable observers that you were specifically targeted and surveilled until a reason was found to arrest you.

[1] By significant, I mean incarceration and/or crippling financial penalties. And note that the cost of defending oneself is categorically not a penalty. [2] This, of course, only applies to societies ruled by law, as opposed to those ruled by individual persons or groups

Re: As Criminal Laws Proliferate, More Are Ensnared

#85

Post by dpatru » Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 3:19 PM UTC

cageface wrote: post #61

dpatru wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a free society, everything is permissible unless it is forbidden. In a non-free society, everything is forbidden unless it is permitted. When the laws are so numerous and complicated that the ordinary person does not know what is forbidden, a free society feels and functions like an un-free society. A society under law means that people cannot be prosecuted by the whim of the authority, but only according to objec…

Can you think of any examples of real-world "free" societies like the ones you describe? I can't.

It always has been and it's still the case in America that what is not prohibited is permitted. The problem is that in the last 70 years, the number of prohibitions have greatly increased. Technically we're still free; practically, there are fewer free domains available. The internet is one such domain, and that's why there is so much innovation here as compared to, say, banking or medicine.

Re: As Criminal Laws Proliferate, More Are Ensnared

#86

Post by SageRaven » Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 4:01 PM UTC

coolgeek wrote: post #84

Eliezer wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's a perfectly apposite quote. No, the proliferation of laws is not there as the result of an evil conspiracy to make everyone guilty of something. But sometimes you can clearly illustrate harmful side effects in fiction by postulating evil conspiracies that do things for the sake of the harmful side effects. Nobody knows the law anymore. Everyone is guilty of something. If the police want to arrest you, th…

Nobody knows the law anymore. Everyone is guilty of something. This argument is reductio ad absurdum. The corpus of law bearing significant consequences for violators [1][2] is sufficiently small as to be almost intuitively understood by any reasonably educated person. As a general rule, you're not going to be confronted by the full weight and force of the state for violating the jaywalking statute. Were you to be ta…

I'm too tired to find the reference, but some woman recently got sentenced to serve 90 days (thereabouts) incarceration for planting a garden in her front lawn in contradiction to local ordinances. Of course this is a prime example of civil disobedience, as she intentionally flaunted this absurd law, challenged it as best she could in court, then paid the price of losing.

The point is, you can be tossed into the clink for just about anything if you are brazen enough to openly challenge the law and don't prevail. Judges don't care much for the proles challenging the state.

Re: As Criminal Laws Proliferate, More Are Ensnared

#87

Post by crux_ » Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 4:06 PM UTC

temphn wrote: post #76

crux_ wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Same thing in today's USA. The mob of teens who broke Emily Guendelsberger's leg could not be arrested because the policemen were afraid of charges of racism. I don't get it: Arresting/picking up black teenagers in a large city simply because of their skin color would be racist, would it not? Isn't that exactly what the policeman is saying? Your belief that targeting black teenagers in general would of course lead…

Read the full article. The policemen said they would not arrest the kids in the mob who had attacked them, despite multiple eyewitnesses pointing out this mob, ostensibly because of the lack of individual identifiability, but in reality because the policemen were afraid of being demagogued as "racists". Easier to punish the guy digging up arrowheads.

I read the article. Directly before the excerpt you quoted, as related by the same individual, you have the following quotes:

a) "Most of the kids had left", b) "obviously at that point the people who had attacked you guys had run off"

So how, exactly, were the police to arrest the attackers?

Re: As Criminal Laws Proliferate, More Are Ensnared

#88

Post by joegester » Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 5:37 PM UTC

SageRaven wrote: post #86

coolgeek wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody knows the law anymore. Everyone is guilty of something. This argument is reductio ad absurdum. The corpus of law bearing significant consequences for violators [1][2] is sufficiently small as to be almost intuitively understood by any reasonably educated person. As a general rule, you're not going to be confronted by the full weight and force of the state for violating the jaywalking statute. Were you to be ta…

I'm too tired to find the reference, but some woman recently got sentenced to serve 90 days (thereabouts) incarceration for planting a garden in her front lawn in contradiction to local ordinances. Of course this is a prime example of civil disobedience, as she intentionally flaunted this absurd law, challenged it as best she could in court, then paid the price of losing. The point is, you can be tossed into the clin…

She wasn't sentenced. The charges were dropped either because the city didn't want the negative publicity or because the case would not have held up.

http://moneyland.time.com/2011/07/15/charges-dropped-against...

Re: As Criminal Laws Proliferate, More Are Ensnared

#89

Post by ctdonath » Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 9:08 PM UTC

drhodes wrote: post #77

ctdonath wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reducing laws means reducing the bureaucracy supporting their enforcement. This is a powerful counter-incentive. This would never be discussed in public, but will induce lots of rationalizations. Example: When Prohibition of alcohol ended, the regulating agency faced serious reductions in staff. Funny, severe restrictions on firearms (NFA) were enacted right about the same time - and guess which body was assigned ove…

Bureaucratic inertia. Who in their right mind would advocate their own good job be cut? Another example: the DEA broadcasts insane propaganda to justify itself while turning a deaf ear to real solutions for the withering violence on the Mexican border. It's infected.

"withering violence on the Mexican border"

You _are_ aware that the BATF and other agencies have been facilitating that violence, right? Google "Operation Fast And Furious", then consider how that contributes to ever-growing bureaucracy.

Re: As Criminal Laws Proliferate, More Are Ensnared

#90

Post by brazzy » Tue, Jul 26, 2011, 11:19 AM UTC

jeangenie wrote: post #10

brazzy wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I don't understand (as a non-US-citizen, mind you) is how the fact that these are federal laws is relevant at all. It sounds to me like the problem is the number of obscure laws, the vagueness of the offenses, and the lack of mens rea requirement. Surely it would be just as bad if these were state laws (for the citizens of that state, anyway)? Or are there for some reason no state laws of that kind? If so, what…

IANAL but it's bad for citizens because it gives federal courts wider purview on what they'll prosecute for and how they punish for it; needless to say, if your case is getting pushed to federal courts you're fucked, especially when you're being charged under statutes you've never heard of rather than state laws which you may or may not know.

Not "needless to say" at all. Why are you more fucked in a federal court than in a state court? Why would you be more likely to have never heard of a given federal statue than a given state law?