4 ms·
I think more interesting is how to decide in advance if a particular use is use in crime. Before a judge will decide there is a crime.
by avmich 6y ago
I think more interesting is how to decide in advance if a particular use is use in crime. Before a judge will decide there is a crime.
- WJW 6y agoStep 1: Look at some law books. If it's in there, then it's definitely a crime.
- nickff 6y agoDo you have any idea how many laws there are? In addition to that, regulations aren’t neat and tidy or organized, yet they carry the force of law.
- dschuler 6y agoI think avmich is getting at the idea that some actions may or may not be legal until determined to be a crime, at which point there would be two: the original crime, and using radio to facilitate it. This reminds me of a question on the US immigration card for non-citizens - it asks if the traveler intends to rob a bank. If you want to be let in, you have to check "no" of course, but anyone who then robs a bank while on vacay will face an additional perjury charge. I'm not sure if this accomplishes anything other than the usual "tough on crime" stuff.
- fredophile 6y agoMy understanding is that the purpose of those types of questions is to make it easy to deport you for lying on the immigration paperwork.
- avmich 6y agoAnd some immigration lawyers can perhaps successfully argue that it was due to sincere change of heart - no intent at the time of answering the question. /s
- fredophile 6y agoI've been through the immigration process to get a green card. The questions I remember answering are all about your past and not so much about what you intend to do in the future.
- vaduz 6y agoThe goal of similar questions (also, my favourites: have you ever been training child soldiers, or have you been involved in a violent overthrow of a legal government) is to make any discrepancy a separate immigration offense - making it a jurisdiction of Immigration Court, with expedited process whilst you have limited rights and deportation at the end.
- dschuler 6y ago> making it a jurisdiction of Immigration Court, with expedited process whilst you have limited rights and deportation at the end Aah got it, that makes sense now. So it's not just political posturing for the extra-tough- on crime stuff.
- Supermancho 6y ago> Step 1: Look at some law books. If it's in there, then it's definitely a crime. Until you go to a US court, you probably think it's that simple. This is very wrong. There are plenty of US laws that are so broad (or narrow) that nothing or everything fits or are so badly written as to be ineffectual. There are also silly laws in place, which are not enforced. The act is likely going to be adjudicated based on current prevailing influence holders, of the time and area. This is why moving jurisdiction is typically the simplest way to indemnify a defendant.
- damnyou 6y agoThat is very definitely not how common law systems work. Common law systems rely very heavily on past precedent and case law, not merely the words in a statute. Take the levels of scrutiny applied to laws and regulations in equal protection lawsuits, for example. Why is judicial review for racial discrimination covered under strict scrutiny, but sex discrimination only covered under intermediate scrutiny? There's no statute prescribing this—American courts invented it.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- chaorace 6y agoI think it's a bit like felony murder. Nobody wants you committing felonies, but, if you do commit a felony, you're incentivized to avoid causing potentially deadly situations. (setting aside the actual efficacy of such incentives, that's just how the law currently is) To put it another way, you probably won't be charged just for selling drugs over a radio frequency. You'll be charged for the regular crime of selling drugs and an additional charge of using radio to commit that crime.