5 ms·
In principle, yes, but the proliferation of broadly defined crimes has made the formal guarantees much less valuable than they might otherwise be. In current US
by _delirium 8y ago
In principle, yes, but the proliferation of broadly defined crimes has made the formal guarantees much less valuable than they might otherwise be. In current US law, especially federal criminal law, prosecutors have a huge amount of discretionary power, and the discretion itself, i.e. who they choose to investigate and charge and who they don't, is subject to very weak judicial oversight (they can more or less only get in trouble for it if they're dumb enough to say on the record something like, "I looked for something to charge this person with because they're black"). And if a federal prosecutor does decide they want to charge you with something and is willing to spend resources on a fishing expedition, they're pretty likely to find some charge that will stick.
- swagasaurus-rex 8y agoWhat are some broadly defined crimes I should be careful not to commit?
- chrischen 8y agoWell in my local city before (Troy, MI) it was illegal to spit on the ground. Apparently it was a law designed to be selectively enforced to allow police to target who they want.
- roenxi 8y agoWell, one that got a bit of press recently is making false statements which I found out about when they got Flynn for it [0]. I thought it was interesting, because the test for lying is 'is it material to the case', so there might be no crime but if you mis-remember some relevant fact while explaining the situation to government a crime suddenly comes into existence. Particularly when you are up against entities that potentially have a better idea of your online and call activity than you do and have lawyers with a better understanding of what 'material' means. But realistically, the problem is that America has more laws than anyone can read and has also developed a secret legal apparatus so has case law on the books that essentially nobody is allowed to know about [1]. Since an American can't possibly know what the law is, it seems like a stretch if they claim to be following it. Particularly if they do something off the beaten track like run a business, live overseas (byzantine tax system), talk to government officials (see above) or communicate with other people using the cell phones or internet (I think teen sexting laws in the US might be a federal crime, for example, which is sometimes a nasty shock to many minors). Also note that for all this stuff the tests involve dangerous legal words like 'reasonable' and 'contemporary adult community standards', which we all think we know what we mean up until it turns out that they mean something slightly different to everyone and the lawyers have very different standards to on some topic. Everyone is unreasonable on something, hopefully there not on something there is a law about, eh? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_false_statements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_false_statements [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court#Secrecy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intellig...
- wbl 8y agoAll you have to do is say "I take the fifth".
- roenxi 8y agoI have repeated it 5 times in a variety of different tones. I still don't know all the law that governs a US citizen, and they would still likely apply to me if I was in America :P. You've missed the point. If someone puts a bear trap just outside my door it is easy to avoid - just hop over it. That doesn't change the fact that there is a bear trap outside my door. The whole point here is there are so many laws on the books that just talking to a federal agent is potentially incriminating, which is what is being part of what is being acknowledged by pleading the 5th immediately and getting a lawyer. Also, if I don't know about the bear trap, there is a very high chance I will get caught in it even though it is easy to avoid.