2 ms·

> 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,

> 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

> 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.