Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (532206)	11/24/2009 12:05:02 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1575624

The development represents a sharp break with tough-on-crime policies associated with the Republican Party since the Nixon administration. To the extent there has been a break I mostly agree with it, and might even be considered to be part of it, but I'm not sure how big of break there has been. There are many politicians, both Republicans and Democrats, who love to push a tough on crime image. Its also important to try to be actually tough on crime, but that term is so vague it includes things that are good, things that are bad, and things that are neutral. Also things that are bad in some ways but do produce some good results. The main move away from the most extreme "tough on crime" ideas, is to make less actions in to prosecutable offenses. We need less crimes that are crimes only under statue law or even just regulation, that aren't crimes do to the nature of the action. Such as the examples mentioned in the article you posted (“It’s a violation of federal law to give a false weather report,” Mr. Meese said. “People get put in jail for importing lobsters.”) Also we should make the law clearer on what it a crime. If something is to be potentially prosecuted and punished it should be fairly clear. One thing I'd like to see eliminated as an offense would be "structuring". Moderately large cash transactions and some non-cash transactions need to be reported. A libertarian argument could be made against these reporting requirements but as long as we have an income tax, and drug laws (both of which could also be argued against, but that's beyond the scope of this statement), you may need some of these regulations. OK, if we're going to have them then have them, have some specific amount that meets the reporting requirement and enforce just that specific amount. If its $10K, leave people who deposit $9999 alone. If you worried about those deposits, then maybe lower it to $1k or any other amount, but only enforce a clear standard. Don't go after people for deposits one third of that amount a week for six weeks because they are "structuring" their deposits to avoid meeting the requirement. This hasn't affected me personally, and I don't think it causes as much harm as some other laws, but its just a case of the law being so vague, that the idea of the rule of law is harmed. If you need a specific standard, make it, announce it, and enforce it, otherwise leave people alone. Talking about cash, another problem is that large amounts of cash get seized, without having to convict the person the cash is taken from. The cash holder has to prove his innocence to get it back. That's bass-ackwards. The article mentioned sex crimes. Obviously rapists and molesters deserve harsh sentences, but "sex crimes" that can cause you to have to register as an offender, can include consensual actions that either shouldn't be crimes, or should be very minor crimes. Then some place put in place laws about where people on the registry can live (x distance from a schools, playgrounds, parks, day care centers etc.) that can in some cases effectively exile the person or make them homeless since they can't legally live almost anywhere in the city in question. Maybe some would want to exile serious criminals, but not all these people are serious criminals. “A joint on a yacht, and the whole thing is forfeited,” said Paul Cassell, a law professor at the University of Utah and a former federal judge appointed by President George W. Bush. Or even in one case just a seed. The joint could have been left there by someone else besides the owner, the seed could have blown aboard. And even if the owner was caught smoking the joint, it shouldn't have such a penalty associated with it. I actually think it should be legal, but even if it isn't going to be, imposing what could be in effect a million dollar fine is ridiculous. Also the standards for the seizure are much lower than that of conviction which is also wrong. Really they are lower than even in a normal civil suit. In both the standard is preponderance of evidence, but in a seizure case, once the assets are taken, you have the burden to provide the preponderance of evidence rather than the other way around. And the fact that law enforcement organizations can keep some of the value of what's seized gives them too much incentive to take things. In addition to the scope of law, I also think its become over federalized.