Posted on 09/25/2015 6:45:12 AM PDT by MichCapCon
A bill to protect Michiganders from being prosecuted for unknowingly violating thousands of state laws and regulations could soon face a vote in a key committee of the Michigan House of Representatives.
House Bill 4713 would restore a standard for defining what constitutes criminal liability. The move would affect numerous state statutes, especially regulatory violations. Under mens rea (Latin for ‘the guilty mind’), more than just the act of violating a law must be considered to establish criminal liability; the intent of the accused person also has to be considered.
On Sept. 17 the House Oversight Committee held a hearing on the bill. Observers expect the committee to vote on the legislation soon, possibly as early as Sept. 24.
“This addresses statutes that fail to specify that there needs to be proof of a culpable mental state,” Mike Reitz, the executive vice president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, told the committee. “For a crime to occur there has to be a combination of intent and action."
Witnesses speaking before the committee said that as the number of the state’s regulatory crimes have increased the mens rea concept has consistently been omitted.
This has resulted in cases such as that of Alan Taylor, a Sparta business owner who unintentionally became a criminal after he had an employee parking lot expanded. After the work was done, the Department of Environmental Quality informed Taylor that his project had encroached on a wetland. The department's lead investigator admitted it wasn’t clear that the lot was on protected land, but ultimately, Taylor was found guilty and ordered to pay $8,500 in fines and costs.
In reaction to this case, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Markman called on the Legislature to clarify statutes that criminalize administrative offenses.
Advocates of reform argue that Michigan’s law books include an estimated 3,102 crimes, a number so large that residents aren’t likely to be aware of or fully understand many of them. One study has shown that 27 percent of Michigan felonies and 59 percent of state misdemeanors contain no mens rea provision.
Under the bill under consideration, mens rea would apply to all crimes to which it could reasonably be applied. Under that standard, a criminal offense could only be established if it were proven that the accused person had acted with intent, knowledge or recklessness. Statutes within the vehicle code, the penal code and drug laws would be exempt and not affected by the bill.
“The need for this involves two issues,” Reitz said. “One, personal liberty; and two, it will also provide an element of clarity.”
Rep. Lana Theis, R-Brighton, asked why the Legislature doesn’t solve the problem by getting rid of all of the state’s problematic laws.
“My concern is that there are a lot of laws on the books that shouldn’t be on the books in the first place,” Theis said. “Maybe we shouldn’t be doing this and instead should be getting rid of those laws.”
Rep. Ed McBroom, R-Vulcan, the chair of the committee and sponsor of the bill, said that doing that was something that sounds easier than it actually would be.
“There is a law that says colored chicks and rabbits can’t be sold, which has never resulted in a single case,” McBroom said. “But when we attempted to take it off the books there was quite an outcry from certain quarters. And that was only one of the many laws we’re talking about.”
Shelli Weisberg, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, spoke in support of the bill.
“We agree with everything the Mackinac Center has said regarding this bill,” Weisberg said.
Russell Coleman, of the U.S. Justice Action Network, testified in favor of the bill. He cited the case of Lisa Snyder, of Middleville, who watched over her neighbors’ children for 20 to 30 minutes each morning until the school bus arrived. Snyder didn’t realize that what she’d been doing could get her in trouble until she received a letter from the Michigan Department of Human Services. It warned her that if she continued to watch the children at her home, she would be providing child care without a day care license. As a result of her illegal activity, she could face penalties, possibly even jail time.
Coleman also cited the case of Michigan resident Kenneth Schumacher, who delivered scrap tires to what he believed to be a legal depository, not knowing the facility wasn’t licensed to receive the tires. Even after appealing his subsequent conviction, Schumacher received a sentence of 270 days in jail and a $10,000 fine.
That quote is all well and good if the only laws are pretty intuitive, like "Thou shall not kill" and "thou shalt not steal" . Unfortunately, it is a little more complicated than that now.
It’s one of the top quotes on my FR profile page.
“Ignorance of the law is no excuse”. Without that rule, ANYONE who commits a crime can just say, “I didn’t know...” And get off scott-free.”
Bullcrap only a lawyer could love. That made sense when laws had some semblance of sanity. Today you can violate a dozen laws just working in your yard, stopping to take a photograph, or pursuing some normal work relater activity.
There is no conceivable way someone can learn and interpret the body of law out there today.
Its generally impossible for a layman to even research it, even if they know a topic.
This is especially true in view of the layer of complexity added when modern laws simply authorize some regulatory agency to promulgate thousands of pages of dense regulations.
Next, for that to make sense, the law has to mean something so someone who reads it. When you abandon the principle that a law must by its very wording, be understandable, how can you hold someone to account for it.
No, “ignorance of the law is no excuse” needs to head to the garbage can. The method of putting it there is jury nullification. Refuse to convict.
I now must get a building permit to replace an existing window or even a water heater.
I’m OK with the idea of a building permit for an occupied dwelling or an electrical inspection to wire an occupied dwelling but a permit for a replacement window is all about keeping a county inspector employed.
Just hand everyone a book with all the laws!
“or laying a foundation in a technical wetland.”
And their definition of a wetland is not a layman’s. And the things that ruin a wetland are not what most normal people would easily recognize.
Some of the wetland stories are simply horrendous. And the fines are out of all proportion to the violation. I place them in the class of cruel and unusual punishment and excessive bail.
These 38,000 a day fines.... its time this country stood up to them.
And you are correct, it is regulatory agencies. The legislature writes a law, the agency puts out the regs. The Legislature huffs and puffs and says how this was never intended. And nothing changes.
“a law that says colored chicks and rabbits can’t be sold”
So do they have to use separate facilities and schools too?
First thing that came to mind.
Yes, that is where they should be going.
The law makes distinctions that some people don't really understand:
There is the intent to break a law;
There is the intent to commit an act which is unlawful;
There is the commission of a volitional act which is subsequently determined to recklessly endanger or injure others.
What should be done in the real world? What should be the result in the case of a 22 year old man who has sex with a 15 year old girl if everyone agrees that the 15 year old girl told the man that she was 18 (above the legal age for consent) and everyone agrees that he believed her? He didn't intend to break the law, but he did intend to commit an act which is in fact unlawful. What should be the result? Should the priority be to protect the child or the man's liberty?
Ya think????
Both fine suggestions, and I offer a third, jury nullification. Teach the prosecutors that they will lose these cases.
Quietly get on a jury, say all the things you know to say about following the law the judges instructions, etc. Then in the chambers wield the unassailable power a juror has. Your decision is beyond review.
Remember not to just be a stonewall digging your heels in. They will remove you for that.
Deliberate, argue, debate, etc. Pretend its a thread with 1500 posts. Enjoy yourself, act open minded, but know your decision is in stone. As a side benefit, maybe a liberal will pop a critical vessel.
"“Do you really think we want those laws observed?" Said Dr. Ferris. We want them broken. You better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick and you'd better get wise to it. 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 nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now, that's the system Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, Part 2, Chapter 3, Page 404
Ohio got rid of traffic cameras! The Legislature did the right thing!
Jury Nullification is one of the greatest things our founders ever envisioned. Its why I have these quotes on my profile page.
THOMAS JEFFERSON (1789): I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.
JOHN ADAMS (1771): It’s not only ....(the juror’s) right, but his duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgement, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.
ALEXANDER HAMILTON (1804): Jurors should acquit even against the judge’s instruction....”if exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong.”
U.S. vs. DOUGHERTY (1972) [D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals]: The jury has....”unreviewable and irreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge.”
“Ignorance of the law is no excuse.”
If so, then the statists can pass laws and fill the jail cells and turn the populace into submissive baaing sheep. As they are already doing.
I just watched “The prophecy of Ayn Rand” on Netflix. Good show. Who knew she pronounced her name that way? I didn’t.
That's not correct. The Federal Register is the listing of proposed regulations, new regulations, modified regulations, and rulemaking discussions. That is indeed 80,000 pages per year, which is a mind-numbing number.
However, the sum total of regulatory law is contained in the Code of Federal Regulations. It's much bigger!
Makes sense. ‘Mens Rea’ is the principle here, and it means “the guilty mind’. It is a legal principle stated thus: “Mens rea is a legal phrase used to describe the mental state a person must be in while committing a crime for it to be intentional. It can refer to a general intent to break the law or a specific, premeditated plan to commit a particular offense.”
The article clearly stated that this would not apply to criminal and drug laws. Look, even the ACLU is on board with what this Republican-controlled legislature is trying to do.
In my youth, at Easter time, at Woolworth’s (and other such places) you could buy chicks and baby rabbits who had been dyed spring colors. They were adorable in my child’s eyes but my parents thought it barbaric, and refused to buy them. These little creatures were not well treated and did not live long. I think this is what the law is referring to.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.