http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8167533318153586646&...
It discusses many of the same issues, citing one primary reason for not talking to the police as the tremendous, unknowable breadth of federal law and the fact that you can't possibly know what strange provisions you might be in breach of. Professor Duane quotes Supreme Court Justice Breyer:
"The complexity of modern federal criminal law, codified in several thousand sections of the United States Code, and the virtually infinite variety of factual circumstances that might trigger an investigation into a possible violation of the law, make it difficult for anyone to know in advance just when a particular set of statements might later appear to a prosecutor to be relevant to some investigation."
Duane memorably points out that it's illegal to be in possession of a lobster of a length that is too short under Honduran law, even "if you acted in self-defense."
I strongly recommend it as an extremely entertaining and informative talk to anyone who hasn't previously seen it.
I highly recommend taking the time to watch this video if you haven't seen it already.
Also, state police will not report you to the federal police (except for immigration violations, and drugs in most states). State police fucking hate federal police agencies b/c the federal agencies utterly disrespect local law enforcement.
Finally, federal law only applies to interstate activities (usually, connected in some way to commerce). Without that crucial nexus, the federal government can prosecute you all it wants, but every court in the nation (except maybe in Texas and the Deep South) will throw out the case, with prejudice, and possibly even sanction the prosecutor for malicious prosecution.
Here are some quotes that IMO get to the root of the problem:
"The amount of individual citizen conduct that is now potentially subject to federal criminal control has increased in startling proportions in the last several decades, beyond any understandable interest in dealing with federal programs, truly interstate issues, or international crime."
"The sheer volume of modern law makes it impossible for an ordinary American household to stay informed. And yet, prosecutors vigorously defend the old legal maxim that "ignorance of the law is no excuse." That maxim may have been appropriate for a society that simply criminalized inherently evil conduct, such as murder, rape, and theft, but it is wholly inappropriate in a labyrinthine regulatory regime that criminalizes activities that are morally neutral."
"When an innocent person sits down in a quiet room to assess his options following a federal arrest and indictment, you soon learn that you’ll be broken financially if you choose to fight and go to trial. The pressure to plead guilty — even if you are innocent — is enormous."
The problem seems to affect not only individuals, but also corporations, with criminal liability law growing greatly in scope, severity and number. Here is a boring but informative panel discussion (video): http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/video/06-08-09clp.ht...
However, executives can be held criminally liable for corporate misconduct b/c they're the ones who ordered/ratified/approved the conduct.
Note too, that criminal liability is not the same thing as tort liability -- corporations can be held liable for their torts, b/c intent is rarely a element in such actions.
This would fix so many problems. The copyright and patent laws would look dramatically different if they were written today. You wouldn't have silly state laws like it being illegal to have a goatee in Massachusetts, or it being illegal for moose to have sex on state highways in Alaska (how do they enforce that one?) We might rethink the war on drugs now that we've been at war for a generation. The 2nd amendment probably either shouldn't exist or should protect the rights of people to own much more than guns, now that a guy with a gun is easy fodder for a tank. You really need to legalize Stingers and TOWs to fulfill the original purpose of the 2nd amendment.
Curiously, the sunset provision on all laws should itself be subject to sunset provisions. It makes sense to make laws persistent when the world does not change very much over decades. In fact, we probably would not have developed our post-industrial society without it. It's only when the world starts getting massively remade on the timescale of 5-10 years that it makes sense for laws to expire and be remade themselves.
If only this didn't cause logical paradoxes at the time the sunset provision itself sunsets...
I have a few nitpicks about your examples though:
Copyright and patent laws might be different if they had to be renewed. I suspect there's a good chance they'd be worse based on the sort of laws that have been passed on the subject recently.
There have been credible movements in several states to rethink the war on drugs. They usually don't get the results you might want though. As an example, after Alaska's supreme court struck down the state's ban on marijuana, the voters put a new one in place (which was also struck down).
Small arms are very useful in modern combat, especially in a rebellion where it isn't desirable for the government to level an entire city. Asymmetric warfare works, and small arms are helpful for capturing more powerful equipment.
If the sunset-provision had applied in the past, right now, the copyright/patent periods would be rapidly approaching infinity.
OTOH, the purpose of the Constitution in general and the Bill of Rights in particular is so that one group of people cannot gain the power they need to prevent other people from gaining power. And if amendments themselves sunsetted, that would most likely occur, and the disenfranchised groups wouldn't even have a vote next time they came up for vote. So in that light, perhaps amendments should stay regardless.
I still think that the 2nd amendment should definitely be reinterpreted in terms of the laws it allows or doesn't allows. It was intended to prevent the government from gaining too much power by preserving the right of the people to overthrow it by force of arms. In a world of tanks, planes, and nukes, the people no longer have that right anyway. Instead, the 2nd amendment has been recast as a way of preserving the right to kill other people, which works for the government as citizens become so concerned with protecting themselves from home invasions and petty criminals that they forget about the international invasions and grand crooks in Washington. IMHO, it should either be repealed or it should be interpreted to apply to classified information as well, so that the citizenry has the right to build their own nuclear bombs.
I disagree about the second amendment though, along with any other constitutional provision. They are a little too serious for me to sunset.
However, if the two examples are even close to as cut and dry as the article stated (not guaranteed, considering the source), I think that it is a clear indication that the those laws' scopes are far too broad.
No law should have enough reach that a judge and jury could convict in even one case on that level of trivialness.
For starters, "dangerous materials" is very strictly defined -- it's stuff like toxic chemicals, radioactive materials, and other things that are so inherently dangerous that only a criminal would simply abandon them without taking safeguards. These aren't your run-of-the-mill household are commercial goods -- these are, at a minimum, industrial-strength shit.
What is this "should" of which you write?
Note that successfully defending yourself in court can be horrendously expensive.
Does fox have some kind of devolution agenda?
Here is a statement from the DOJ regarding the Orchid case and the sentencing of George Norris' accomplice: http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2004/July/04_enrd_515.htm
I find it highly suspect that these two fellows were simply innocent victims.
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2007/October/07_enrd_837.html
http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/060604/sta_chemicals.sht...
Note in this story that these materials were being kept at a farm supply store. While they probably have the licenses and facilities for storing fertilizer and certain flammable gasses, whether they had the same capacity for several tons of sodium and chemical slurry is not clear (can't find more detailed information on them).
Also note that he had shipped 41 pounds of sodium through ebay. I'd say that the issue isn't so much that he mislabeled his shipments once or twice, but rather that it happened again, and again, and again, and someone took notice, followed up on the guy, and turned over just how much material was involved.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Part_One_Eco-inven...
Note here that he paid for the storage of the materials by trading 2,000 pounds of borax, which makes me question if this was so that the farm supply store wouldn't have to make an accounting of the storage.
My point in this isn't to say that I think the Government ought to be sticking its nose in everyone's business. But the commerce clause EXISTS FOR CASES LIKE THIS. These ARE things that the Federal Government should regulate. We established the EPA because schmucks were improperly storing hazardous materials and people were getting sick from leakage and rivers were being fouled. We established endangered species protection laws because hundreds of species of plants and animals went extinct because no one said, "Hey, you can't do that."
There's a difference between storing and shipping sodium improperly and dumping dioxin in a river, and the two should be treated differently.
The jury always has a choice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
On the other hand, it can be seen as a check on the balance of the executive police powers (specifically, the enforcement powers), which are not otherwise subject to political control.
I am reminded of a story a few years ago (a brief search found no reference) about a CEO who was fired "for cause" because he had left his water glass on a conference table in explicit violation of the policies laid out in the employee handbook. If breaking rules like that can get one fired, can anyone be fired without cause anymore? I doubt that the company's claim held up, but this still is an example of how complex rules/laws can be used to invoke the arbitrary will of the powerful.
Also, I suspect that it is harder for someone let go to claim employment discrimination if he is fired for supposed cause. However, further elaboration would require a law degree on my part.
Edit: I just remembered where I found this article, so credit should go to noblethrasher: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=722425
If they jury truly had no choice in this case, Then I feel it stands to reason Jury's don't have enough power in our legal system, The whole idea of a jury is to bring the common citizen to the legal process, and hopefully some common sense to the law.
Not being able to save an injustly, if lawfully, accused man for the crime of not knowing all the paperwork a disgusting flaw in our system.
I would hope articles such as this bring the issue to life in the political arena.
According to the USDOJ statement, he was importing wild-harvested members of Peruvian endangered species. The issue wasn't that he didn't fill out all the paperwork; it's that the paperwork he filled out was fraudulent, designed to cover up the fact that his "investment income" was from poaching from among the last remaining wild exemplars of a dying species.
You shouldn't have regained your faith.
Between porn, tax evasion (although typically that would be a state crime), and copyright violations, all it takes is a desire by someone in power to ruin your life and you're toast.
I don't see any defense against this -- aside from unplugging -- except to try and cultivate friends in high places, so in case you step on someone's toes you have someone who can step in and get you out. It's unsafe to rely on the justice system to protect you just because you never meant to do anything wrong.
What? Does anyone know more about this? I can't find any info.
Edit: It's bull b/c most nations laws conflict -- it's impossible to obey any one such law without violating the law of another nation. Plus, it would cost too much to US businesses, and do you really think they'd let such a law pass or remain on the books if it actually existed?
Wow, just wow. The grandfather was thrown in jail for conspiracy to import flowers? Well, you heard it people, whoever wanted to have a flower importing start up maybe you should choose something else... something less fraught with danger and less tainted with the musk of criminality!
Also, most crimes of "danger" are state-level crimes, not federal level crimes. Federal crimes, by and large, are the boring crimes you don't see on Law&Order or CSI.
Maybe I'm from a repressed generation, but it seems to me like common sense to consult a lawyer before starting a business, especially if it's "selling rare orchids to make some cash on the side".
And getting outraged over Fox News trash reporting is such a reddit cliché, guys, give me a break.
That aside, it is an important lesson in the over generalization of laws and increased powers and over zealousness of law enforcement officials...