4 ms·
More transparency and readability for regulations sounds great. However, this part stuck out to me: >Criminal prosecution based on regulatory offenses is most
by coderintherye 6y ago
More transparency and readability for regulations sounds great. However, this part stuck out to me:
>Criminal prosecution based on regulatory offenses is most appropriate for those persons who know what is prohibited or required by the regulation and choose not to comply, thereby causing or risking substantial public harm. Criminal prosecutions based on regulatory offenses should focus on matters where a putative defendant had actual or constructive knowledge that conduct was prohibited.
This seems a step backwards. It would seem fairly easy to argue for almost any crime that one simply just didn't know it was a crime.
- gthtjtkt 6y agoThe justice department tried to count all the federal criminal laws once. The best they could come up with was a rough estimate, and that didn't even include state or local laws. There are literally so many criminal laws now that no one is able to count them all, let alone understand them. Is it fair to penalize someone if they couldn't possibly know their behavior was criminal?
- dx87 6y agoA better solution is probably simplifying and reducing the number of laws, not making the government prove that you knew what you did was against the law.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago> It would seem fairly easy to argue for almost any crime that one simply just didn't know it was a crime. That only works until the government knocks on your door and points to the regulation you're violating. Then even if they don't prosecute you for doing it yesterday, you're all out of excuse if you do it tomorrow. Which gets you to stop.
- taurath 6y ago“Sorry officer I didn’t know I couldn’t do that” has ever only worked for the social group with the most power. The rest get the book thrown at them. You have to enforce similar rules the same way for justice.
- oh_sigh 6y agoIt's easy to argue that you didn't know, but not easy to prove it. For example, if there is any licensing or professional regulation, and all licensed professionals are expected to know X, then "I didn't know" as a licensed professional isn't going to cut it.
- bawolff 6y agoWhat if the government published a list of all the laws and expected every citizen to be familar with it? Oh Wait.
- tony101 6y agoIt's literally impossible. Even the US Government does not know how many criminal laws are out there. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304319804576389601079728920 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304319804576389... https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/473659-america-has-too-many-criminal-laws https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/473659-america-... https://twitter.com/CrimeADay https://twitter.com/CrimeADay
- bawolff 6y agoWhy wouldn't the same thing apply to whatever licensing regulations you're expected to be aware of, in the grandparent's idea?