4 ms·

You make three major errors. The first is that you conflate "criminal abuse of office laws" with the "acknowledgement that completely useless/incompetent people

You make three major errors. The first is that you conflate "criminal abuse of office laws" with the "acknowledgement that completely useless/incompetent people must be kicked out from official positions." The U.S. government is not required to convict someone of a crime in order to terminate their employment. Federal civilian labor law is an entire field of practice that is... quite verdant. The second major error is that you conflate the presence of such criminal laws with anti-corruption measures. In reality, the existence of laws that allow jailing someone for making mistakes at work ("incompetence," "failing official audit," etc.) is a tool of corruption. Simply appoint the right auditor and you can eliminate anyone who disagrees with you. Making poor job performance a crime, for someone with no mens rea, is inherently totalitarian and abusive. Lastly, it is simply not a factually correct statement to say that the "USA has very little in terms of law on personal liabilities of officials and their scope." (a) First, I'll address the support you cited. Your reference to 25 C.F.R. § 11.448 is inapposite: it doesn't support your position because it isn't a statute, and it is utterly inapplicable anyway because it only applies on certain Native American reservations. A Bureau of Indian Affairs regulation was not a good choice for you here. See https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/25/11.448 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/25/11.448 and https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/25/11.118 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/25/11.118 (b) I'll address the presence of the law you claim does not exist. (i) Brief overview. Title 5 of the U.S. Code (5 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.) is the statutory law that governs federal employees (except uniformed members, who are governed by title 10, title 14, or title 32, depending on component and status). Additional crimes are in title 18; additional constraints are found in specific titles depending on subject matter (e.g., the VA is governed by title 38). (ii) Specific examples (procedurally): Chapters 43 and 75 provide specific guidance on holding federal civilian employees accountable for malfeasance of any sort. Any lingering questions you have about the U.S. system should probably begin there. (iii) Specific examples (substantively): Since criminal statutes seem to hold special significance for you, let me direct your attention toward 18 U.S.C. § 201 (bribery), 18 U.S.C. § 203, 209 (supplementation of salary), 18 U.S.C. § 205 (representational conflicts of interest), 18 U.S.C. § 208 (personal conflicts of interest), and so on. Additionally, take a look at 10 U.S.C. § 892 (military failure to obey an order and/or dereliction of duty).

baybal2 7y ago
Silly me. Yes, totally mistook title 25 for 5, while it was buzzing in my head. Once again, I'm reminded why we have lawyers, and why google is not a proper legal search engine. Yet, the point that most of official offences are not a matter of title 18 (criminal code) stands I give you +1 for a good, substantiated argument But still, US has very lax stance on official responsibility, and very fundamentally on the idea of whether a failure to perform duty in office or required specific performances pass as an offence for an official. > Making poor job performance a crime, for someone with no mens rea, is inherently totalitarian and abusive. Does US has a stance on failure in official duty being mens rea defensible? A number of Western democratic state don't think so. I'm not meaning for something like an ordinary clerk failing to show at work being a case of it, but for government officers with highest levels of responsibility — positions onto which people certainly don't get by simple promotion.
- torstenvl 7y ago
  > Silly me. Yes, totally mistook title 25 for 5 Your citation was not to "title 25," either. This was not a numerical mistake. You cited the regulatory code, rather than the statutory code. They are entirely different bodies of law. > the point that most of the official offences are not a matter of title 18 (criminal code) stands Yes. Another point that still stands is that you fundamentally misunderstand how important it is not to over-criminalize behavior of this type. The surest sign that a regime is corrupt is that it imprisons those it claims are corrupt. See, e.g., https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1679489/xi-jinping-vows-press-chinas-war-graft https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1679489/xi-jinping-v...
  - baybal2 7y ago
    > Your citation was not to "title 25," either. This was not a numerical mistake. You cited the regulatory code, rather than the statutory code. They are entirely different bodies of law. Well yes, I will not be a lawyer. After all finally remembered, ch 11 of title 18 (criminal code) is what was buzzing in my head at the time. Somehow "abuse of office" felt like it belonged there. I concede on that, IANAL defence does not work when you engage in a dispute with a lawyer with encyclopedic knowledge of the code, and you totally embarrass yourself :) > Yes. Another point that still stands is that you fundamentally misunderstand how important it is not to over-criminalize behavior of this type. And you cite China as an example, out of all countries... Lets follow this logic: a single stroke of a pen by a senior government officer of a big country can easily cause enough damage (economic, property, life, moral) for it to be comparable to a war loss. Just let the guy go? Last time I checked, generals loosing wars were usually relieved of heads, not jobs (even in USA, during the revolutionary era.) The senior-most official positions must be coming with responsibility other than something like "suspension of no more than 14 days," and this is what a lot of nations subscribe to, and not all of them are communist satrapies. In big part of Western Europe and former UK colonies Misfeasance in public office is at least a matter of an administrative liability with a lot of actionable laws against it.

baybal2 7y ago

Silly me. Yes, totally mistook title 25 for 5, while it was buzzing in my head. Once again, I'm reminded why we have lawyers, and why google is not a proper legal search engine. Yet, the point that most of official offences are not a matter of title 18 (criminal code) stands I give you +1 for a good, substantiated argument But still, US has very lax stance on official responsibility, and very fundamentally on the idea of whether a failure to perform duty in office or required specific performances pass as an offence for an official. > Making poor job performance a crime, for someone with no mens rea, is inherently totalitarian and abusive. Does US has a stance on failure in official duty being mens rea defensible? A number of Western democratic state don't think so. I'm not meaning for something like an ordinary clerk failing to show at work being a case of it, but for government officers with highest levels of responsibility — positions onto which people certainly don't get by simple promotion.

torstenvl 7y ago
> Silly me. Yes, totally mistook title 25 for 5 Your citation was not to "title 25," either. This was not a numerical mistake. You cited the regulatory code, rather than the statutory code. They are entirely different bodies of law. > the point that most of the official offences are not a matter of title 18 (criminal code) stands Yes. Another point that still stands is that you fundamentally misunderstand how important it is not to over-criminalize behavior of this type. The surest sign that a regime is corrupt is that it imprisons those it claims are corrupt. See, e.g., https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1679489/xi-jinping-vows-press-chinas-war-graft https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1679489/xi-jinping-v...
- baybal2 7y ago
  > Your citation was not to "title 25," either. This was not a numerical mistake. You cited the regulatory code, rather than the statutory code. They are entirely different bodies of law. Well yes, I will not be a lawyer. After all finally remembered, ch 11 of title 18 (criminal code) is what was buzzing in my head at the time. Somehow "abuse of office" felt like it belonged there. I concede on that, IANAL defence does not work when you engage in a dispute with a lawyer with encyclopedic knowledge of the code, and you totally embarrass yourself :) > Yes. Another point that still stands is that you fundamentally misunderstand how important it is not to over-criminalize behavior of this type. And you cite China as an example, out of all countries... Lets follow this logic: a single stroke of a pen by a senior government officer of a big country can easily cause enough damage (economic, property, life, moral) for it to be comparable to a war loss. Just let the guy go? Last time I checked, generals loosing wars were usually relieved of heads, not jobs (even in USA, during the revolutionary era.) The senior-most official positions must be coming with responsibility other than something like "suspension of no more than 14 days," and this is what a lot of nations subscribe to, and not all of them are communist satrapies. In big part of Western Europe and former UK colonies Misfeasance in public office is at least a matter of an administrative liability with a lot of actionable laws against it.