As Criminal Laws Proliferate, More Are Ensnared

Wall Street Journal ^ | July 23, 2011 | GARY FIELDS and JOHN R. EMSHWILLER

[DManA]

As federal criminal statutes have ballooned, it has become increasingly easy for Americans to end up on the wrong side of the law. Many of the new federal laws also set a lower bar for conviction than in the past: Prosecutors don't necessarily need to show that the defendant had criminal intent.

[DManA]

I am thrilled to see this issue getting attention. The proliferating parallel Federal criminal code is a direct threat to American freedom.

[patriot preacher]

Let’s face it folks — we’re all criminals now. It’s only a matter of whether the Feds decide to prosecute, and on what “charge.”

[Navy Patriot]

Atlas Shrugged.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Isn’t there a Chinese proverb to the effect that the proliferation of laws is indicative of a States decline? Anybody know the proverb?

[ChildOfThe60s]

Let’s face it folks — we’re all criminals now. It’s only a matter of whether the Feds decide to prosecute, and on what “charge.”

Which is exactly the government's intent. We become afraid and will submit to anything in order to stay below the radar.

Buffalo Springfield had no idea they'd be talking about their liberal idols when they wrote "For What It's Worth".

Welcome to the new East Germany.

[Grumplestiltskin]

“Atlas Shrugged. “

Yes, there’s that great quote (made to Hank Rearden) from the book that a fellow Freeper puts up from time to time.

I hope he sees this thread and posts it again. I wanted to add it to my archives of great quotes, but missed it the last time.

[Publius]

Dr. Floyd Ferris to Hank Rearden:

“We want them broken. We’re after power and we mean 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...now, that’s the system, Mr. Rearden, that’s the game...”

[shooter223]

I can’t remember the quote.......... “all that is not mandatory is banned” ...... or something to that effect.

[Navy Patriot]

I just finished rereading Atlas Shrugged last month, I was down with food poisoning and Atlas was the right size to last through it.

I got so much more from it at this age and experience in these times.

A corollary to the "everyone is a criminal" meme is Animal Farm where the Pigs are "more equal" and therefore above the law.

The Marxist dope smoking hippies don't even realize that their rage against cops as "pigs" is sourced from there, and it is SOCIALIST cops that become pigs, whereas Peace Officers temper law with Justice so the spirit of the law prevails for everyone equally, not zero tolerance letter of law tyranny.

Thanks for being there, guys.

[Prokopton]

At one time most of our criminal laws were for acts that were "malum in se", that is they were wrong in and of themselves such as stealing or assault. Now, most of our new criminal laws are "malum prohibitum", that is there is nothing inherently wrong with the act but it is criminal merely because it is prohibited by the government. This trend closely tracts the loss of individual freedom and the strengthening of the power of the state.

We are not now, and I believe never will be again, the Country of free, independent people our Founders envisioned.

[little jeremiah]

I read it in “The Once and Future King” by IIRC T.E.White.

“Whatever is not prohibited is mandatory”.

In the ant kingdom King Arthur as a boy, saw the sign, when Merlin was teaching him by having him become various creatures.

[shooter223]

Thanks, I knew I had the general idea, but couldn’t remember the quote or source.

[little jeremiah]

That phrase has always stuck with me.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

bump for later

[Munz]

I understand how these laws can be made with good intentions in *some* cases. But the punishments do not fit the crimes if they can even be called that.

Punishments should only be handed out for intentional or reckless acts with EXTREMELY RARE exception.

Then we have the problem that not only can you be charged in State or federal court, but you can actually be charged in both for the same crime. So much for “double jeopardy”.

But the worst slap in the face above all is that all things being equal, they ain’t equal.

Imagine being white and intimidating blacks in a voting area. Think that the justice department would prosecute you for it? Or is it now a legal defense that your people have suffered enough already?

[rabscuttle385]

The U.S. Constitution mentions three federal crimes by citizens: treason, piracy and counterfeiting. By the turn of the 20th century, the number of criminal statutes numbered in the dozens. Today, there are an estimated 4,500 crimes in federal statutes, according to a 2008 study by retired Louisiana State University law professor John Baker.

There are also thousands of regulations that carry criminal penalties.

. . .

The American Bar Association. . .in the late 1990s. . .said "the amount of individual citizen behavior now potentially subject to federal criminal control has increased in astonishing proportions in the last few decades."

. . .

Some of these new federal statutes don't require prosecutors to prove criminal intent, eroding a bedrock principle in English and American law.

. . .

Occasionally, Americans are going to prison in the U.S. for violating the laws and rules of other countries.

[I see my hands]

"dope smoking"

Patriots who indulge are no less equal than patriots who don't.

[gun_supporter]

Many of you have disparaged John Stossel for his views, but he was telling you this years ago. You just dismissed him as a libertarian idiot. I love you guys here at FR, but as JS would say...give me a break!

[Navy Patriot]

Still can't get out of the box, I see.

[Ken H]

The power of Congress to criminalize 'assault weapons' and incandescent bulbs depends on the New Deal Commerce Clause.

What percentage of the numerous federal crimes discussed in this article depend on the Commerce Clause for their existence?

I suspect it's a high percentage.