id actually be interested in knowing the sort of stuff the 3 felonies a day relates to
you got a link or somethin sam? im assuming it isnt stuff like drugs or warez
yes 100%, I don't think anyone could really argue that the prison system in general and the private prison system in specific is fucking horrendous
I'm just pruriently curious as to what types of felonies were identified as being among the 3 a day because as an anthropologist i love that shit
^this.It's from a book written by a Harvard professor and lawyer named Harvey Silverglate, and I can't find any examples he puts forth, just a lot of articles that cite his book making the claim. From the description it looks like a lot of vague federal laws particularly in tech. Probably a lot of bunk to sell books.
yes 100%, I don't think anyone could really argue that the prison system in general and the private prison system in specific is fucking horrendous
I'm just pruriently curious as to what types of felonies were identified as being among the 3 a day because as an anthropologist i love that shit
..Over Criminalization
Congress has passed too many criminal laws, many of which are overlapping and others far too broad. On top of this, overly creative prosecutors have learned to expand existing statutes beyond recognition by combining parts of different statutes to make up new crimes - a practice well documented in Licensed To Lie. Prosecutors also take the broad conspiracy and aiding and abetting statutes and incorporate into them federal regulations that were never intended to be criminal offenses....
In one of the books I posed above (I think it was One nation under arrest), the author tells a story about this one American who was importing lobster from a Central/South American nation. Somehow, (I think it was from a competitor) the name of his company was given to the Feds which sent in the inspectors to inspect his cargo for contraband, and it turned up nothing. So, the Feds started digging through all his financials looking for anything they could charge him with, and again, they had nothing. So, they started looking deeper and they discovered some unknown trade agreement where citizens in the US can be charged for breaking foreign nations laws about trade and they found some never before heard of regulation in this foreign nation about transporting lobster in a special bag - something that this American wasn't doing - the US Feds charged him for this foreign law and threw the book at him.It's a combination between local, State, and Federal laws
It's so bad, that no one (not even the GAO) knows how many laws are out there. In fact, GAO doesnt even know how many federal laws there are. Look at how many counties there are in the USA (election maps can help there). You get the idea.
Our laws used to be based around Mens rea.Imo, the old adage 'ignorance of the law is no excuse' is fucking horseshit.
This was the hurdle that the Feds needed to break in order to criminalize us all, and they did it. By removing the guilty mind aspect of breaking a law, they began to criminalize regulations that no one ever heard of and power-hungry potential politicians began 'getting tough on crime' and used these new criminal acts to highlight why they deserve to become a critter.Mens rea (/ˈmɛnz ˈreɪə/; Law Latin for "guilty mind") is the mental element of a person's intention to commit a crime; or knowledge that one's action or lack of action would cause a crime to be committed. It is a necessary element of many crimes.
The standard common law test of criminal liability is expressed in the Latin phrase actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, i.e. "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty".[1]:113 In jurisdictions with due process, there must be both actus reus ("guilty act") and mens rea for a defendant to be guilty of a crime (see concurrence). As a general rule, someone who acted without mental fault is not liable in criminal law. Exceptions are known as strict liability crimes. Moreover, when a person intends a harm, but because of bad aim or other cause, the intent is transferred from an intended victim to an unintended victim, the case is considered to be a matter of transferred intent.[2]:63–64
In civil law, it is usually not necessary to prove a subjective mental element to establish liability for breach of contract or tort, for example. But if a tort is intentionally committed or a contract is intentionally breached, such intent may increase the scope of liability and the damages payable to the plaintiff.