Hacker News Reader

Comment by DarkKomunalec | Hacker News Reader

"And it’s no excuse to say that the vast majority of these cases will never be prosecuted. As the Ninth Circuit explained, “Ubiquitous, seldom-prosecuted crimes invite arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” Instead of pursuing only suspects of actual crimes, it opens the door for prosecutors to go after people because the government doesn’t like them."

This should be branded onto anyone that ever defended an overbroad law with 'It'll only be used to go after bad guys!'

View on HN

This is a huge problem with the U.S. legal system. A lot of common behavior has been criminalized, to the point where most people could probably be pursued for something. There's a general shrug about this, followed by a "I doubt they'd actually go after you for that." But that ends up meaning that authorities can target an individual when they want to, and since this is often followed by throwing a lot of shade about the targeted individual people think it's justified.

What's an example of such common behavior?

License plates aren't exactly common on wood splitters, irrigation trenches, concrete mixers and other towable equipment that's small enough to be a two man lift but they're required. In some states it's a higher end misdemeanor to not have your papers in order when traveling on public roads.

I know that's not something the typical urban/suburban HN visitor deals with on a daily basis but it happens.

https://mic.com/articles/86797/8-ways-we-regularly-commit-fe...

I wouldn't call any of those exactly 'common', but they're far from criminal.

It doesn't have to be common or recent as long as a sufficient number of people are caught in the dragnet.

These laws exist to only be used sparingly as needed. They're to be used as a surprise "gotcha" for someone that couldn't otherwise be "gotten" If prosecution under these sort of laws was overused they the laws would be changed.

I'm not saying I agree with it.

Off the top of my head... Distracted driving is a crime in many states now (where distracted has been interpreted more or less broadly to include electronic devices or even eating while driving). Having a phone playing Spotify/Pandora/$X into your car stereo can be a punishable offense in MA, OR, WA, NY, etc.

Just because there have not been actual convictions for said offenses does not mean they are not prosecutable. Depending on the state, simply interacting with an electronic device while driving (to change the station for example), can be a punishable offense.

Distracted driving is now the leading cause of traffic accidents, above even speeding and drunk driving. That to me is a strong sign that it ought to be illegal.

Also, traffic infractions usually aren't crimes or misdemeanor in most jurisdictions.

To be fair it probably always has been the leading cause. Especially if you include things like yelling at your kids to stop messing with each other, day dreaming, etc. The issue isn't that it is dangerous, the issue is that it is selectively enforced.

Also, regardless of the level of criminality, driving infractions can be/are selectively enforced. Being pulled over for being distracted can quickly lead to being arrested for some other offense, or for the police to search your car, or even for them to claim you were aggressive and shoot you dead.

> Depending on the state, simply interacting with an electronic device while driving (to change the station for example), can be a punishable offense.

I wonder if these laws have an "out" for police officers while they are driving...?

In Georgia, yep, police are specifically exempted. They can do whatever they want on their laptops (or other devices)

A lot of small businesses get caught up in structuring charges. The IRS requires banks to report deposits of greater than $10,000. But it's illegal to break up a large deposit into multiple deposits that are less than $10,000. (IANAL, so I'm not sure if you have to do this with the intent of actually avoiding the reporting requirement.)

For lots of small businesses in cash-heavy markets (e.g., gas stations or convenience stores), it's pretty easy to end up making a series of $8000 deposits and end up being charged with structuring. Regardless of whether you can beat the charge, the cost of having to defend yourself is punishment enough.

Of course, you can argue that this isn't really common --- most people aren't small business owners who happen to be making just under $10,000 every week. But the point is that even though each of these laws ends up targeting a small fraction of people, there are enough of them that everyone ends up violating a few of them at some point.

Is this a fact about the U.S. legal system, or about legal systems in general? (This isn't a rhetorical question - I'd actually be interested to hear an answer from someone who has knowledge of multiple legal systems.)

> Is this a fact about the U.S. legal system, or about legal systems in general?

I can't speak to other legal systems, but the fact that here in the USA we have a large "private prison industry", coupled with the fact that these prisons often sell their "prisoner work services" (or whatever they call them) to other companies, and they lobby Congress for these new laws, and for more prisons to be built, etc...

Yeah - they kinda have an incentive to make more people break laws - so they continue to get more "employees" (and more "campuses") to be able to sell these services to more companies (who like the access to these cheap services - much cheaper than hiring their own employees, sometimes even cheaper than overseas workers - prisoners are pretty cheap to employee as a group!).

I'm sure that this is a trend, though, that might expand worldwide, if it hasn't already...

This happens at the university I go to: wearing shorts is against the rules (being written up enough times for it can get you expelled) but no one cares because it's the students (RAs) that enforce it.

So when people are mad at each other (or someone just likes wielding their power) other people end up hurt. "It's not enforced" is a terrible excuse for bad laws.

Not that I like shorts, they're pretty ugly.

> Not that I like shorts, they're pretty ugly.

Shorts are life.

What weird backward university is this that doesn't allow shorts?!

Brigham Young University maybe http://www.byui.edu/student-honor-office/ces-honor-code/dres...

Huh not what I was told (though they ban most shorts you could reasonably buy at a store, especially for women, or something like that)

well the original poster said it was not enforced.

Not even BYU completely bans shorts (at least according to a disillusioned co-worker).

Ok looks like Pensacola Christian College basically bans shorts.

Relevant quote I got from HN the other day:

> To my friends, everything; to my enemies, the law

> -Óscar R. Benavides

> This should be branded into anyone that ever defended an overbroad law with 'It'll only be used to go after bad guys!'

Is it shocking to anyone else that there are so many comments like that on HN recently?

"It'll only be used to go after bad guys!" or "If you don't have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about" or "I support free speech BUT ...".

There is a surprising amount of pro-government and anti-free speech sentiment/comments lately.

You think they're pro-gov astroturfing? I interpreted their comment as the opposite..

Reply on news.ycombinator.com