Criminalizing everyone - Needed: A 'clean line' to determine lawfulness(washingtontimes.com)
washingtontimes.com
Criminalizing everyone - Needed: A 'clean line' to determine lawfulness
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/05/criminalizing-everyone/
11 comments
The cases cited in the story are more in line with bureaucrats maintaining budget. By that I mean you have an agency that needs to justify their budget of X dollars with Y convictions to show for it. It's hard to imagine any of the agents mentioned being much concerned about orchids. It's easy to imagine them being concerned about their careers.
Agreed.
Whatever the motivations of the agents referred to in the article, it is still the case that "inappropriate" laws were applied to (presumably) non-criminal activity. It's just speculation on my part, but my theory had to do with those how those laws came to exist.
Once the laws exist, then it's just a matter of any agent sufficiently familiar with those laws to apply them. By that point, it doesn't need to be vigilante activity. An agent with only the best intentions can end up causing harm (i.e. convert a free citizen into a criminal) simply because the laws are flawed.
Whatever the motivations of the agents referred to in the article, it is still the case that "inappropriate" laws were applied to (presumably) non-criminal activity. It's just speculation on my part, but my theory had to do with those how those laws came to exist.
Once the laws exist, then it's just a matter of any agent sufficiently familiar with those laws to apply them. By that point, it doesn't need to be vigilante activity. An agent with only the best intentions can end up causing harm (i.e. convert a free citizen into a criminal) simply because the laws are flawed.
And that's why you should never talk to the police. Really. Ever.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/07/why_you_should...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/07/why_you_should...
While excellent advice, that's not the issue that the article is talking about. You can be the most silent, rights knowledgeable person and still get screwed by Federal law.
I'm currently reading a book titled "Three Felonies a Day" which details how the federal criminal system is broken. The book itself unfortunately is a series of anecdotes, rather than a deeper analysis of how we got to this situation. If you can find it at the library, I recommend skimming a few of the stories to get a feel for what's going on.
I'm obviously not a lawyer, but as far as I understand, federal law does not require a "guilty mind" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea), at least not to the same degree that traditional state law requires. In addition, many federal crimes are written very vaguely, sometimes to good effect (handling unforeseen criminal acts, obviously wrong, but not specifically banned by law), but more often to ill effect (yeah, that's fraud!).
Then, finally, there is the issue of the approach federal prosecutors take in pursuing cases, in which the push for convictions is more important than the push for justice. This results in approaches to cases such as "ladder climbing", where you indict the lower rungs of an organization (mayor's aids for example) with the threat of years of jail, and have them plea bargain out to almost nothing in exchange to testify against the person above them. Often, the choice for the person being accused is so obviously one sided that they'll creatively spin their testimony so that innocent behavior suddenly because "fraud" or "obstruction of justice" or similarly vague crimes.
One more sneaky thing that federal prosecutors do is that certain things are crimes, even where not obvious. For instance, lying under oath is obviously a crime (perjury). Lying to a federal officer while not under oath is also a crime (a felony no less).
So basically, federal prosecutors can pin very serious crimes on almost anybody they wish, as this article pointed out with import/export restrictions about flowers.
I'm currently reading a book titled "Three Felonies a Day" which details how the federal criminal system is broken. The book itself unfortunately is a series of anecdotes, rather than a deeper analysis of how we got to this situation. If you can find it at the library, I recommend skimming a few of the stories to get a feel for what's going on.
I'm obviously not a lawyer, but as far as I understand, federal law does not require a "guilty mind" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea), at least not to the same degree that traditional state law requires. In addition, many federal crimes are written very vaguely, sometimes to good effect (handling unforeseen criminal acts, obviously wrong, but not specifically banned by law), but more often to ill effect (yeah, that's fraud!).
Then, finally, there is the issue of the approach federal prosecutors take in pursuing cases, in which the push for convictions is more important than the push for justice. This results in approaches to cases such as "ladder climbing", where you indict the lower rungs of an organization (mayor's aids for example) with the threat of years of jail, and have them plea bargain out to almost nothing in exchange to testify against the person above them. Often, the choice for the person being accused is so obviously one sided that they'll creatively spin their testimony so that innocent behavior suddenly because "fraud" or "obstruction of justice" or similarly vague crimes.
One more sneaky thing that federal prosecutors do is that certain things are crimes, even where not obvious. For instance, lying under oath is obviously a crime (perjury). Lying to a federal officer while not under oath is also a crime (a felony no less).
So basically, federal prosecutors can pin very serious crimes on almost anybody they wish, as this article pointed out with import/export restrictions about flowers.
A person should not be deemed a criminal unless that person "crossed over that line knowing what he or she was doing."
We used to say, "Ignorance is no excuse for the law." The situation now though, is that there are so many laws and regulations that it is impossible not to be ignorant. Not only do we not know the laws, but we don't know how to find out what the laws are. Small business owners are especially prone to mistakes considering there are corporate laws, civil laws, tax laws, employment laws...
We used to say, "Ignorance is no excuse for the law." The situation now though, is that there are so many laws and regulations that it is impossible not to be ignorant. Not only do we not know the laws, but we don't know how to find out what the laws are. Small business owners are especially prone to mistakes considering there are corporate laws, civil laws, tax laws, employment laws...
I think that there must be an exception for certain crimes, but not all crimes. Otherwise, a murderer, rapist, thief, corporate spy, hacker, etc, could claim that they didn't know it was illegal and probably get off the hook.
The one being discussed is "criminal intent". It's an admittedly fuzzy term, but clearly if you're murdering someone, you have criminal intent regardless of your knowledge of whether it is illegal.
Well... mostly clearly. Clearly enough in the murder case, but there's certainly fuzzy cases. Still, there are an awful lot of crimes on the book that when you lack criminal intent, it doesn't actually make sense to prosecute from either a "rehabilitation" or "punishment" point of view, such as the ones in the article. What did society gain by any useful metric in the orchid case? In fact it lost a lot for no good reason.
Well... mostly clearly. Clearly enough in the murder case, but there's certainly fuzzy cases. Still, there are an awful lot of crimes on the book that when you lack criminal intent, it doesn't actually make sense to prosecute from either a "rehabilitation" or "punishment" point of view, such as the ones in the article. What did society gain by any useful metric in the orchid case? In fact it lost a lot for no good reason.
Disclaimer -- IANAL, so maybe we can all get some elaboration from an attorney and learn something?
Let's make a distinction between intent and awareness of the law. For example's sake, let's say you've been trading stock off a tip a company insider gave you, which is illegal. At the same time, you don't know it's illegal, but you are consciously trading the stock.
Intent -- You have the intent to trade the stock because you are doing it during the day, awake and fully aware of your actions. You would not have intent if you traded the stock while sleepwalking.
Awareness of the law -- You are not aware that your actions are a crime, despite having an intent to perform those actions. This makes no difference -- you are held accountable for your actions whether you knew they were illegal or not, as long as you were cognizant while you were taking those actions.
IANAL, so again, the language is probably all flubbed. But it's my understanding that intent matters, not awareness of the law. Can anyone correct me if I'm mistaken?
Let's make a distinction between intent and awareness of the law. For example's sake, let's say you've been trading stock off a tip a company insider gave you, which is illegal. At the same time, you don't know it's illegal, but you are consciously trading the stock.
Intent -- You have the intent to trade the stock because you are doing it during the day, awake and fully aware of your actions. You would not have intent if you traded the stock while sleepwalking.
Awareness of the law -- You are not aware that your actions are a crime, despite having an intent to perform those actions. This makes no difference -- you are held accountable for your actions whether you knew they were illegal or not, as long as you were cognizant while you were taking those actions.
IANAL, so again, the language is probably all flubbed. But it's my understanding that intent matters, not awareness of the law. Can anyone correct me if I'm mistaken?
The concept of "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" (Ignorantia juris non excusat) was really only ever meant in the context of natural laws, e.g. murder, theft, rape, etc. These things are so obviously horrible that anyone should know they are wrong. Hence "crossed over that line knowing what he or she was doing."
In the realm of political laws, ignorance absolutely excuses. Why should it be obvious that importing orchids requires certain paperwork?
In the realm of political laws, ignorance absolutely excuses. Why should it be obvious that importing orchids requires certain paperwork?
.. and why should the penalty be imprisonment instead of "hey, we know you probably mean well, here is what it takes to do the right thing: x, y, z."
I think we need a line between criminality and what i'll call "regulation" -- which, if intentionally ignored should become criminal, but otherwise there services should help people be law-abiding.
I think we need a line between criminality and what i'll call "regulation" -- which, if intentionally ignored should become criminal, but otherwise there services should help people be law-abiding.
This was killed the last time it was here:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=722676
That time via Fox News:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/07/21/heritage-house-law...
They're essentially identical and both written by the same partisan think tank dude.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=722676
That time via Fox News:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/07/21/heritage-house-law...
They're essentially identical and both written by the same partisan think tank dude.
And this one's in the Washington Times -- the shittiest partisan rag in the country, run at a massive loss by the Moonies.
Whoever's funding this set of talking points clearly wants to push deregulation of some sort using it as pretext.
Whoever's funding this set of talking points clearly wants to push deregulation of some sort using it as pretext.
There are times I think the number of laws should be fixed... at say 1000. If congress wants to make a new law, they have to remove an old one.
That's a good idea, though the constant should be lower. Human societies survived for thousands of years with on the order of 10 (very popular) to a few dozen criminal statutes.
You can get away with one, really -- protection of private property, with one's own body defined as a property. However, it's probably easier to codify without an accompanying philosophical treatise if you write it as three to four laws, banning violence, theft, fraud, and possibly defamation.
Defamation is a combination of fraud and violence.
The problem with your scheme is the protection of the commons.
The problem with your scheme is the protection of the commons.
It might not work today, but if one day we create strong AI, we can create (a disinterested) one called "the Environment", and give it the property rights to everything not currently considered private.
Well, we do have a lot more to make laws about now. Internet privacy law was clearly not a concern for cavemen. If you make the law too general, you'll have the same problem.
There's a legal scholar (and I'm blanking on the source at the moment) that makes a very convincing point that a small handful of laws (against violence, fraud [1], etc.) covers 95-98% of all cases. The other 2-5% of cases are necessarily judgement calls. What's interesting is that the percentage of cases requiring judgement calls doesn't decrease as you go from N laws to 10,000N laws.
[1] To your point: it's true that we have more things we can make laws about, but I suspect that it isn't true that we should make laws about every specific thing. Fraud is fraud, murder is murder. It shouldn't matter whether you use the internet, a telephone, or pencil and paper to defraud someone, in the same way that we don't need a separate murder statute for each choice of murder weapon.
[1] To your point: it's true that we have more things we can make laws about, but I suspect that it isn't true that we should make laws about every specific thing. Fraud is fraud, murder is murder. It shouldn't matter whether you use the internet, a telephone, or pencil and paper to defraud someone, in the same way that we don't need a separate murder statute for each choice of murder weapon.
And the exact application of those few laws in nearly infinite situations would require first a caste of extremely powerful judges, and later an accumulation of precedents which would effectively become a massive and complex legal code in itself.
Some brilliant thinkers centuries ago developed an ingenious technology for constraining judges: juries.
Of course, juries work better when they are able to find on both the facts and the justice of the law. We've deviated from this at our peril.
Mens rea, criminal intent, has historically been the simplifying agent in law. That's why you don't see a terribly complicated set of case laws surrounding, say, murder. The problem with lots of current criminal statutes is that you can be guilty of violating them without any intent to harm.
Of course, juries work better when they are able to find on both the facts and the justice of the law. We've deviated from this at our peril.
Mens rea, criminal intent, has historically been the simplifying agent in law. That's why you don't see a terribly complicated set of case laws surrounding, say, murder. The problem with lots of current criminal statutes is that you can be guilty of violating them without any intent to harm.
And will your legal system include only such clear-cut cases as premeditated murder? What do you do when someone starts file-sharing your program? Apply a single, simple, almost certainly ambiguously worded law about theft? And let's pretend your law is perfectly worded so as to have a clear application in every single situation: do you deem file-sharing theft?
What about if, in self-defense, someone goes further than necessary? He's attacked and choked by someone bigger and stronger. He reasonably fears for his life. Through chance or skill, he gets the upper hand, and knocks his attacker out. Then, before caveman adrenaline has faded, he slams the guy's head into the pavement until he dies. Do you apply the single "thou shalt not kill" law?
I don't really want answers to these specific questions, but to the meta-question: how do you handle actions which are harmful to society, but which cannot be resolved by straightforward common-sense ethical reasoning?
What about if, in self-defense, someone goes further than necessary? He's attacked and choked by someone bigger and stronger. He reasonably fears for his life. Through chance or skill, he gets the upper hand, and knocks his attacker out. Then, before caveman adrenaline has faded, he slams the guy's head into the pavement until he dies. Do you apply the single "thou shalt not kill" law?
I don't really want answers to these specific questions, but to the meta-question: how do you handle actions which are harmful to society, but which cannot be resolved by straightforward common-sense ethical reasoning?
I would refer back to my grand-parent post.
The hard, borderline cases that you mention are relatively rare. No matter how complicated your system of laws, these cases tend to require humans, either judges or juries, to make a careful decision.
If you have 10,000 laws rather than 10, you end up instead having to decide which of the many conflicting laws that could be applied should be applied to the situation. In marginal cases, human judgement is extremely difficult to replace.
The hard, borderline cases that you mention are relatively rare. No matter how complicated your system of laws, these cases tend to require humans, either judges or juries, to make a careful decision.
If you have 10,000 laws rather than 10, you end up instead having to decide which of the many conflicting laws that could be applied should be applied to the situation. In marginal cases, human judgement is extremely difficult to replace.
Well, from this and another post, you seem to be concerned mainly with overlap between similar laws -- a natural result of a large and fragmented legal code. Why not prune it instead of scrapping it? Refactor instead of rewrite? Insert jwz quote.
What do you do when someone starts file-sharing your program? Apply a single, simple, almost certainly ambiguously worded law about theft?
One simple law about theft that can't neatly answer the question seems preferable to the current tens or hundreds of possibly applicable pedantically worded laws that can't neatly answer the question.
One simple law about theft that can't neatly answer the question seems preferable to the current tens or hundreds of possibly applicable pedantically worded laws that can't neatly answer the question.
You've disregarded the second, stronger portion of that argument. Constrained though they may be, the trail of precedents judges would generate in the "1000 laws" scenario would simply constitute a complex shadow law.
I believe I addressed that with the note about criminal intent.
Common law has tended to focus obsessively on mens rea. Statute law has tended to disregard it. The difference probably has something to do with having to make a judgement about a particular case with the humans that are going to be affected standing there in front of you, as compared to dreaming up a bunch of laws in the abstract, or coming up with laws to address a politically attractive but wildly uncommon situation.
I believe this argument is empirically strong. You can see for yourself that there are (at least) hundreds of years of case law about murder. And yet the law surrounding murder seems quite a bit more straightforward than the laws surrounding, say, exporting electronics. This is because criminal case law has been sharpened by a focus on criminal intent.
Common law has tended to focus obsessively on mens rea. Statute law has tended to disregard it. The difference probably has something to do with having to make a judgement about a particular case with the humans that are going to be affected standing there in front of you, as compared to dreaming up a bunch of laws in the abstract, or coming up with laws to address a politically attractive but wildly uncommon situation.
I believe this argument is empirically strong. You can see for yourself that there are (at least) hundreds of years of case law about murder. And yet the law surrounding murder seems quite a bit more straightforward than the laws surrounding, say, exporting electronics. This is because criminal case law has been sharpened by a focus on criminal intent.
As recently as this year, SCOTUS has made rulings that set new legal precedent for murder (Google "Tonya Harden"). I don't even have to argue that it's specious to compare murder to environmental destruction or occupational safety to rebut that argument.
That would be the West Virginia Supreme Court, not SCOTUS.
http://www.huntingtonnews.net/state/090605-rutherford-statet...
And in any case, arguing around the edges of self-defense is a far cry from the sort of felony paperwork violations that got us into this discussion.
So perhaps the most clarifying question I could ask is: how many examples can you find of case law criminalizing paperwork mistakes with no criminal intent or intent to harm others, as compared to how many examples of that are there in statute law?
http://www.huntingtonnews.net/state/090605-rutherford-statet...
And in any case, arguing around the edges of self-defense is a far cry from the sort of felony paperwork violations that got us into this discussion.
So perhaps the most clarifying question I could ask is: how many examples can you find of case law criminalizing paperwork mistakes with no criminal intent or intent to harm others, as compared to how many examples of that are there in statute law?
You're right, my bad. Hopefully my point stands intact, which is that even for a cut-and-dry crime like murder, court precedent defines a fairly complex shadow law --- self defense, intent to kill, competence, etc.
Like (I think) most reasonable people, I'm not in favor of criminalizing paperwork mistakes with no criminal intent.
Like (I think) most reasonable people, I'm not in favor of criminalizing paperwork mistakes with no criminal intent.
> an accumulation of precedents which would effectively become a massive and complex legal code in itself.
Common law? Worked out pretty well for the English for about 1000 years.
Common law? Worked out pretty well for the English for about 1000 years.
[deleted]
Less than 75 years ago, it was legal for parents to send their 10-year-old children to work in mills. But your point is taken; even with oppressive child labor, civilization managed to survive.
What people forget is that child labor on farms was just as oppressive and dangerous. Just like we see in the third world today, children work in factories because it is their best option (as compared to starvation or farm labor) rather than because of inadequate laws.
Technology, a capital infrastructure, and pervasive wealth solves this problem, not politicians.
Technology, a capital infrastructure, and pervasive wealth solves this problem, not politicians.
False dichotomy. The FLSA allowed children to work on farms with their parents. That too should have been illegal, and correcting it complicates the law.
Once again we see free markets failing to cope with externalities and twisted incentives. Children don't want to work on farms, nor are they qualified to make such judgements, nor are their parents, in exactly the same way that parents can't consent to numerous other things for their children (for instance, a parent can't consent to marry off an 11 year old daughter).
Whether you're poor or not, having your children pad your income isn't a viable solution, nor is it efficient, and yet it is the short-term solution the free market demonstrably arrived at.
Once again we see free markets failing to cope with externalities and twisted incentives. Children don't want to work on farms, nor are they qualified to make such judgements, nor are their parents, in exactly the same way that parents can't consent to numerous other things for their children (for instance, a parent can't consent to marry off an 11 year old daughter).
Whether you're poor or not, having your children pad your income isn't a viable solution, nor is it efficient, and yet it is the short-term solution the free market demonstrably arrived at.
I take a false dichotomy charge seriously. I think you misunderstand me.
I'm certainly not defending the FLSA's farm exemption, which was clearly just a bow to a powerful special interest group [1].
Of course children don't want to work on farms or in factories. Does anyone want to work in a factory?
My point is simply that if you go to some random third-world country where children are working in factories, and you do nothing else than prevent them from working in factories, you very likely have not increased their quality of life. To your horror, you will see an increase in children scrounging for food in dumpsters. You will see them selling wares on the street. And you will see fewer families escaping a brutal life of farm labor to seek a better life in cities.
Your point about free markets also misses the mark. You could repeal all the child labor laws today in the US, and you would not find (a statistically significant number of) factories hiring children for the simple reason that with modern industrial techniques children wouldn't even be productive enough to justify their space on a factory floor. This is part of the reason why teenage unemployment is so high even though teens will work for minimum wage.
[1] Not to say that I think much harm comes from this today.
I'm certainly not defending the FLSA's farm exemption, which was clearly just a bow to a powerful special interest group [1].
Of course children don't want to work on farms or in factories. Does anyone want to work in a factory?
My point is simply that if you go to some random third-world country where children are working in factories, and you do nothing else than prevent them from working in factories, you very likely have not increased their quality of life. To your horror, you will see an increase in children scrounging for food in dumpsters. You will see them selling wares on the street. And you will see fewer families escaping a brutal life of farm labor to seek a better life in cities.
Your point about free markets also misses the mark. You could repeal all the child labor laws today in the US, and you would not find (a statistically significant number of) factories hiring children for the simple reason that with modern industrial techniques children wouldn't even be productive enough to justify their space on a factory floor. This is part of the reason why teenage unemployment is so high even though teens will work for minimum wage.
[1] Not to say that I think much harm comes from this today.
This argument is a slippery slope. If you take a third-world country and allow child factory labor, children demonstrably work in factories. Clearly, if you disallow factory labor but allow truancy and neglect, children demonstrably become garbage dump scavengers. At some point you need to have the political will to decisively address child welfare and education, rather than allocating rupiah to cronies and paramilitaries.
That the complete solution to this problem involves more than simply outlawing child labor doesn't mean that outlawing child labor is itself ineffective. There are child labor problems in economies that can otherwise provide for children --- even if you have a stable economy, you still need the rule of law.
Finally, it seems hollow to argue that, after 70+ years of regulation of child labor, repealing child labor laws would not change the facts of child labor on the ground in the US. While the economy certainly has more to do with the end of child labor than the law does, the law still plays a significant part. As a society, we've eliminated child labor and adapted to that circumstance. That is, at least in part, a victory of child labor prohibition.
To say that child labor is simply an artifact of outmoded manufacturing practices misses the fact that plenty of modern companies do engage in child labor, in jurisdictions that allow it.
At any rate, you can have the last word, because this conversation is devolving. I think the idea that society can get along just fine on 10, 100, or even 1000 laws is naive; child labor is a simple example, but I could come up with many more vivid examples as well --- for instance, the fact that marital rape has only been addressed within the last century or so.
That the complete solution to this problem involves more than simply outlawing child labor doesn't mean that outlawing child labor is itself ineffective. There are child labor problems in economies that can otherwise provide for children --- even if you have a stable economy, you still need the rule of law.
Finally, it seems hollow to argue that, after 70+ years of regulation of child labor, repealing child labor laws would not change the facts of child labor on the ground in the US. While the economy certainly has more to do with the end of child labor than the law does, the law still plays a significant part. As a society, we've eliminated child labor and adapted to that circumstance. That is, at least in part, a victory of child labor prohibition.
To say that child labor is simply an artifact of outmoded manufacturing practices misses the fact that plenty of modern companies do engage in child labor, in jurisdictions that allow it.
At any rate, you can have the last word, because this conversation is devolving. I think the idea that society can get along just fine on 10, 100, or even 1000 laws is naive; child labor is a simple example, but I could come up with many more vivid examples as well --- for instance, the fact that marital rape has only been addressed within the last century or so.
That's an incredibly ridiculous argument. Because we might want to simplify our legal code to, say, not make it a 2-year-in-prison federal felony to misplace paperwork about orchids, with no criminal intent, we're in immanent danger of decriminalizing child labor?
Seriously?
Seriously?
I'm responding to an argument that we could do just as well with 100 laws as we can with tens of thousands. You're reading it as an argument that our current laws are good.
I can simultaneously believe that we have many unjust or incompetent laws on the books and not be a libertarian.
I can simultaneously believe that we have many unjust or incompetent laws on the books and not be a libertarian.
You do realize, of course, that your goal of having only 10 laws would fall in the exact pitfall described by the original poster, which is how vague laws can be.
Once a law is broad and vague, it is subject to interpretation and may become subjective. Which is the original point of this article.
Sorry, no solution found yet :-)
Once a law is broad and vague, it is subject to interpretation and may become subjective. Which is the original point of this article.
Sorry, no solution found yet :-)
I guess you should also define 'laws.' Some 'laws' do things like levy taxes or tariffs. Because they are 'laws' they make it a crime to avoid then, but by themselves they are not something that seeks to make criminals.
The law can be fair or the law can be simple.
Unfortunately, it can also be neither. It's easier to simplify than make it fair.
Your first point is well taken. Your second point isn't. A lot of things aren't easy, and we do them anyways because they're right.
That's a good sound bite, but I don't agree that a simple law must inherently be unfair. In particular, I think that a simple law is likely to achieve greater fairness in a specific area than a complex one, even if neither is perfectly fair for whatever definition of fair.
It is easier to abide by simple, though unfair, law than complicated and arguably fair law.
Congress will be OK with this I think, they'll just make each law span 1000s of pages.
It's easy to have an emotional reaction to this. But maybe it's smart for us to think coolly and practically for a moment. This trend is probably unlikely to reverse in the short term. Until then, how can those of us in the USA protect ourselves and those we care about?
The two examples in the article were both entrepreneurs and small business owners. Would it have helped them to have better legal representation from the beginning? If so, exactly what form?
The article didn't mention their legal structures used; the fuel cell fellow may have been incorporated somehow, but I'd bet the orchid importer's vehicle was a sole proprietorship. Would operating as a corporation or LLC have helped?
I doubt this is something we can answer fully in this thread. But maybe we can get started.
-Aaron
The two examples in the article were both entrepreneurs and small business owners. Would it have helped them to have better legal representation from the beginning? If so, exactly what form?
The article didn't mention their legal structures used; the fuel cell fellow may have been incorporated somehow, but I'd bet the orchid importer's vehicle was a sole proprietorship. Would operating as a corporation or LLC have helped?
I doubt this is something we can answer fully in this thread. But maybe we can get started.
-Aaron
I don't see how there's much you can do. It is probably impossible to go a day without breaking a law unknowingly. The law is so big that it is impossible for a single person to know all of it. In other words, even if you did nothing all day but study law, you could end up unknowingly breaking a law and going to jail. The problem is with the law, not with people.
> The law is so big that it is impossible for a single person to know all of it.
You're also forgetting case-law here too. It's possible for someone to read all of the laws on the books, but not realize what the current interpretation by the courts of those laws is (or will be).
You're also forgetting case-law here too. It's possible for someone to read all of the laws on the books, but not realize what the current interpretation by the courts of those laws is (or will be).
I think the opposite is true here. Inspector Javer will always make it his career and his life to chase Jean Valjean. It doesn't matter whether there's 5 laws or 50000.
There are certain people in the world like this. There always have been. Unfortunately, they seem to be drawn to law enforcement. The best any system can hope for is to minimize their impact. I do agree that our current system does a very poor job of it.
There are certain people in the world like this. There always have been. Unfortunately, they seem to be drawn to law enforcement. The best any system can hope for is to minimize their impact. I do agree that our current system does a very poor job of it.
A better system would be for education and compliance programs instead of imprisonment. It costs about $40k/year to keep someone in prison. Surely it should cost less to teach them how to do things on the up and up (which would be easier if the law was navigable.)
I had a high-ranking local police official tell me over 30 years ago that there were so many laws that the police could basically control whoever they wanted by selective enforcement of the legal code.
Of course that wouldn't work for a rich or famous person -- the cops would be embarrassed -- but for the rest of us we've been in a situation for many decades where there are so many laws that we're basically in a police state. The only reason more folks don't rise up is that so far, mostly, it's a benevolent dictatorship.
I love the analogy between code and the law, because it's so true. We in the IT industry have a unique insight into how complex systems are created and maintained. Our current legal system is way out of whack.
But politicians get elected for doing something -- and that means spending money, passing laws, or fighting wars. That's about all the options they have. So the system continues to spend more and more money, create more and more complex laws, and we end up with "wars" on poverty, drugs, and carbon emissions.
All laws should have an expiration date.
Of course that wouldn't work for a rich or famous person -- the cops would be embarrassed -- but for the rest of us we've been in a situation for many decades where there are so many laws that we're basically in a police state. The only reason more folks don't rise up is that so far, mostly, it's a benevolent dictatorship.
I love the analogy between code and the law, because it's so true. We in the IT industry have a unique insight into how complex systems are created and maintained. Our current legal system is way out of whack.
But politicians get elected for doing something -- and that means spending money, passing laws, or fighting wars. That's about all the options they have. So the system continues to spend more and more money, create more and more complex laws, and we end up with "wars" on poverty, drugs, and carbon emissions.
All laws should have an expiration date.
Of course that wouldn't work for a rich or famous person
Martha Stewart might disagree.
In many ways, the rich and famous actually make perfect targets. Prosecutors and politicians can stir up some of the general contempt that many people still quietly harbor against the wealthy. It can be a great way for a budding prosecutor to break into higher office (c.f. Eliot Spitzer).
Your observations are otherwise completely sound.
Martha Stewart might disagree.
In many ways, the rich and famous actually make perfect targets. Prosecutors and politicians can stir up some of the general contempt that many people still quietly harbor against the wealthy. It can be a great way for a budding prosecutor to break into higher office (c.f. Eliot Spitzer).
Your observations are otherwise completely sound.
Yeah, and in many ways, they don't make perfect targets. In the case of Martha Stewart, it seems she only got taken down because there were vested interests more powerful than her interested in that goal.
I agree that rich/famous people certainly can make a good target, but whether a particular rich/famous person will make a good target depends on the power to which that individual has access to, obviously. Money talks, regardless of how many people hate you for having it. I would suggest that the amount of wealth an individual has access to would be a far more accurate predictor of whether that individual will be taken down in court as opposed to celebrity. It just so happens that many famous people are also wealthy.
Sure there's always going to be exceptions, but you can't seriously be suggesting that rich/famous people in general make perfect targets in court? I'm thinking a famous, yet poor person might be the best kind of target.
I agree that rich/famous people certainly can make a good target, but whether a particular rich/famous person will make a good target depends on the power to which that individual has access to, obviously. Money talks, regardless of how many people hate you for having it. I would suggest that the amount of wealth an individual has access to would be a far more accurate predictor of whether that individual will be taken down in court as opposed to celebrity. It just so happens that many famous people are also wealthy.
Sure there's always going to be exceptions, but you can't seriously be suggesting that rich/famous people in general make perfect targets in court? I'm thinking a famous, yet poor person might be the best kind of target.
Of course that wouldn't work for a rich or famous person...
True enough for O.J. Simpson. But Michael Milken could give you a different take on that issue. Prosecutors often want to make a name for themselves, and prosecuting John Q. Public doesn't further that goal as well as nailing Daddy Warbucks.
True enough for O.J. Simpson. But Michael Milken could give you a different take on that issue. Prosecutors often want to make a name for themselves, and prosecuting John Q. Public doesn't further that goal as well as nailing Daddy Warbucks.
[deleted]
Considering how much trouble people have navigating even the simplest computer interfaces, sometimes I wonder how anyone could possibly understand all of the laws that impact their daily lives.
The Washington Times is owned by Rev. Moon.
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt."
My personal theory of how this situation came about, however, could be called the "Walker, Texas Ranger" explanation. I think some lawmakers/enforcers turn vigilante when they are convinced a would-be criminal has gotten away with some potentially-criminal act because of how the law is written, so they seek to change the law.
As hackers, I assume we all have a lot of experience with [computer] code, and we're aware that a small change "here" can have unexpected side-effects "there." I know that when I learned about SML, Lisp, and functional programming without "side effects" I was blown away that it was possible to formally prove the execution of some functions. In other words, it is possible to write good, clean, predictable code.
Nothing like that exists for legal code, however. It's a tangled mass of declarative assertions, nested dependencies, GOTO statements, (naive) version control, and namespaces. A vigilante action to alter some part of the code essentially has unpredictable consequences for other parts of the code.
The changes couldn't be measured if you wanted. In a management sense, the project is totally out of control. Big surprise, then, that private enforcement and prisons are a growth industry. Some people see this for what it is: an opportunity. Just make sure you're an investor instead of a "customer."