Log in

View Full Version : As Criminal Laws Proliferate, More Are Ensnared


Feuer Frei!
07-28-11, 07:55 PM
Hidden Laws:

Eddie Leroy Anderson of Craigmont, Idaho, is a retired logger, a former science teacher and now a federal criminal thanks to his arrowhead-collecting hobby.
In 2009, Mr. Anderson loaned his son some tools to dig for arrowheads near a favorite campground of theirs. Unfortunately, they were on federal land. Authorities "notified me to get a lawyer and a damn good one," Mr. Anderson recalls.
There is no evidence the Andersons intended to break the law, or even knew the law existed, according to court records and interviews. But the law, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, doesn't require criminal intent and makes it a felony punishable by up to two years in prison to attempt to take artifacts off federal land without a permit.

Faced with that reality, the two men, who didn't find arrowheads that day, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor and got a year's probation and a $1,500 penalty each. "We kind of wonder why it got took to the level that it did," says Mr. Anderson, 68 years old.
Wendy Olson, the U.S. Attorney for Idaho, said the men were on an archeological site that was 13,000 years old. "Folks do need to pay attention to where they are," she said.


The Andersons are two of the hundreds of thousands of Americans to be charged and convicted in recent decades under federal criminal laws—as opposed to state or local laws—as the federal justice system has dramatically expanded its authority and reach.
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.


These factors are contributing to some unusual applications of justice. Father-and-son arrowhead lovers can't argue they made an innocent mistake. A lobster importer is convicted in the U.S. for violating a Honduran law that the Honduran government disavowed. A Pennsylvanian who injured her husband's lover doesn't face state criminal charges—instead, she faces federal charges tied to an international arms-control treaty.
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. Some laws are so complex, scholars debate whether they represent one offense, or scores of offenses.



Last September, retired race-car champion Bobby Unser told a congressional hearing about his 1996 misdemeanor conviction for accidentally driving a snowmobile onto protected federal land, violating the Wilderness Act, while lost in a snowstorm. Though the judge gave him only a $75 fine, the 77-year-old racing legend got a criminal record.
Mr. Unser says he was charged after he went to authorities for help finding his abandoned snowmobile. "The criminal doesn't usually call the police for help," he says.
A Justice Department spokesman cited the age of the case in declining to comment. The U.S. Attorney at the time said he didn't remember the case.


Some of these new federal statutes don't require prosecutors to prove criminal intent, eroding a bedrock principle in English and American law. The absence of this provision, known as mens rea, makes prosecution easier, critics argue.

Occasionally, Americans are going to prison in the U.S. for violating the laws and rules of other countries. Last year, Abner Schoenwetter finished 69 months in federal prison for conspiracy and smuggling. His conviction was related to importing the wrong kinds of lobsters and bulk packaging them in plastic, rather than separately in boxes, in violation of Honduran laws.
According to court records and interviews, Mr. Schoenwetter had been importing lobsters from Honduras since the mid-1980s. In early 1999, federal officials seized a 70,000-pound shipment after a tip that the load violated a Honduran statute setting a minimum size on lobsters that could be caught. Such a shipment, in turn, violated a U.S. law, the Lacey Act, which makes it a felony to import fish or wildlife if it breaks another country's laws. Roughly 2% of the seized shipment was clearly undersized, and records indicated other shipments carried much higher percentages, federal officials said.



There are many reasons for the rising tide of laws. It's partly due to lawmakers responding to hot-button issues—environmental messes, financial machinations, child kidnappings, consumer protection—with calls for federal criminal penalties. Federal regulations can also carry the force of federal criminal law, adding to the legal complexity.
With the growing number of federal crimes, the number of people sentenced to federal prison has risen nearly threefold over the past 30 years to 83,000 annually. The U.S. population grew only about 36% in that period. The total federal prison population, over 200,000, grew more than eightfold—twice the growth rate of the state prison population, now at 2 million, according the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics
Tougher federal drug laws account for about 30% of people sentenced, a decline from over 40% two decades ago. The proportion of people sentenced for most other crimes, such as firearms possession, fraud and other non-violent offenses, has doubled in the past 20 years.


Still, federal criminal laws can be controversial. Some duplicate existing state criminal laws, and others address matters that might better be handled as civil rather than criminal matters.
Some federal laws appear picayune. Unauthorized use of the Smokey Bear image could land an offender in prison. So can unauthorized use of the slogan "Give a Hoot, Don't Pollute."


SOURCE (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703749504576172714184601654.html?K EYWORDS=as+criminal+laws)

Sailor Steve
07-28-11, 11:21 PM
Ridiculous.

ZeeWolf
07-28-11, 11:53 PM
And this is the government that wants to
"control" our right to keep and bare arms?

Wake up America!

Snestorm
07-29-11, 12:05 AM
Sounds like the People need to curb THEIR Government, yesterday.

Tribesman
07-29-11, 03:18 AM
These are all reasonable laws.
Protection of archeaology, protection of wilderness reserves, live animal transport, illegal fishing, violence.

The U.S. Constitution mentions three federal crimes by citizens: treason, piracy and counterfeiting.
No it doesn't, it mentions many more and provides a very wide scope for federal law especially when you take in federal and state lands, trade and international law.

One must wonder if the WSJ is going on about federal laws as its owner and his son plus the papers ex-boss are all looking at facing possible prosecutions under federal law over their illegal "business" activities.

jumpy
07-29-11, 05:13 AM
wow
and we say 'only in america' but here in the uk things are going in a similar direction (some of our laws to protect the country and its citizens from terrorism, for example), all of a sudden you can fall foul of a law you didn't know existed for something you might have been doing quite openly and innocently for years with no complaint from anyone - turning otherwise ordinary people into 'desperate criminals' :shifty:

Whilst there are some laws that appear quite reasonable, necessary even, there's a great deal that aren't and stem from some civil servant busybody or desperately emotional individual (won't somebody please think of the children!) - one that springs to mind is a recent proposal to allow women to investigate their partners to see if they have a history of domestic violence - now that sound all fine and dandy on the surface, but when you actually think about it it rapidly becomes obvious as an ill conceived knee-jerk reaction; one I'd be quite happy to see very publicly shot down in flames*



* I'd be happy with this special law to protect women, so long as men have the right to investigate their partners mental health record to see if they are getting involved with a total nut-case :DL

Tribesman
07-29-11, 06:10 AM
wow
and we say 'only in america' but here in the uk things are going in a similar direction
Look at the examples and transfer them.
Could you imagine an amatuer archeologist caught digging somewhere on Salisbury Plain claiming that he didn't know there were lots of restrictions on where you could dig and complaining about the evil government prosecuting them for digging on a historic site which the government owns.
Snowmobiles ain't really a thing over there but what about someone green laning and ending up with their landy stuck in a nature reserve.
Could you imagine the field day the press would have if captian birdseye was caught importing illegally caught Spanish Lobster in dodgy containers and how they would get the public howling for politicians to impliment bans on all Spanish fish shipments.

Whilst there are some laws that appear quite reasonable, necessary even, there's a great deal that aren't and stem from some civil servant busybody or desperately emotional individual
The problem is that this article deals with reasonable ones as its complaint

Growler
07-29-11, 08:07 AM
The problem is that this article deals with reasonable ones as its complaint

No, the problem is a lack of sense and proportion in the creation of the laws, application of the laws, and the due diligence of the people convicted of the laws.

Tribesman
07-29-11, 08:49 AM
No, the problem is a lack of sense and proportion in the creation of the laws
OK if someone was digging up around the bighorn where the federal govt. owns the land because they liked indian artifacts and might find some as part their hobby would you say it was sensible and proportionate to hit them with just 1.500 dollars and probation or should they get hit a hell of a lot harder to give it more sense and proportion?
As a basic rule people don't go looking for artifacts at random and it is kind of hard to claim ignorance of a historic site on federal land which just happens to be next to your favourite campsite.
So since they could have been assessed for massive fines and lengthy jail terms don't you think the Andersons got off very lightly?

But lets try a different angle. the article complains about how many more people are getting caught up with federal prosecutions, indeed the figuress do show a big rise in prosecutions......mainly for immigration offences, though firearms and fraud also register heavily as does prostitution.
Evil feds with their silly laws eh:03:

Growler
07-29-11, 09:47 AM
You do have a remarkable ability to cherrypick statements without acknowledging someone's entire point. To wit, please reread my original statement, specifically, the part that reads, "...due diligence of the people convicted."

Your assumption that, as a rule, people don't look for artifacts doesn't matter; these people WERE looking for artifacts, and failed to perform the necessary research in order to safeguard themselves from legal action. They thought they were on public, non-regulated land. They failed to confirm that; they were caught.

Where things get into the rocks and shoals is the nature of the sentence: A felony conviction for what is absolutely a misdemeanor-level offence.

This was clearly not a deliberate, premeditated crime - court records (as stated in the article) indicate that they were not aware of the regulation, which indicates the absence of malicous intent. They weren't clearcutting the land and harvesting artifacts. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and they owned that. But for that mistake to be considered a felony-level conviction, on the same scale as capital murder, is absurd.

Tribesman
07-29-11, 11:17 AM
You do have a remarkable ability to cherrypick statements without acknowledging someone's entire point. To wit, please reread my original statement, specifically, the part that reads, "...due diligence of the people convicted."

Sense and proportion are present, application seems fine, you cannot force due dilligence on people but you can sure as hell pull them up on it when they don't show any

But for that mistake to be considered a felony-level conviction, on the same scale as capital murder, is absurd.
It would be absurd if that were so, yet in this case it says it was a misdemeanor conviction not a felony.
The scaling on that offence is entirely dependant on the amount of damage done to the site(and cost of repair), the value of anything stolen, previous convictions for the same offence, any criminal commercial elements to the activity(trading in stolen artifacts).

So it would be absurd for a serious felony conviction in this particular case but they didn't get one, though at the other end of the scale it would be entirely appropriate.
Though of course the maximum 5 year penalty is nothing like a capital murder term.