Criminalizing Everyone

[mrjarrell]

The Washington Times takes a look at over-criminalisation and the nit picking things that could get any one of us thrown in prison. As an aside...does the Fish and Wildlife Service really need a SWAT team? Too many agencies have these menaces and that really needs to stop.

"You don't need to know. You can't know." That's what Kathy Norris, a 60-year-old grandmother of eight, was told when she tried to ask court officials why, the day before, federal agents had subjected her home to a furious search.
The agents who spent half a day ransacking Mrs. Norris' longtime home in Spring, Texas, answered no questions while they emptied file cabinets, pulled books off shelves, rifled through drawers and closets, and threw the contents on the floor.
The six agents, wearing SWAT gear and carrying weapons, were with - get this- the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Kathy and George Norris lived under the specter of a covert government investigation for almost six months before the government unsealed a secret indictment and revealed why the Fish and Wildlife Service had treated their family home as if it were a training base for suspected terrorists. Orchids.
That's right. Orchids.
By March 2004, federal prosecutors were well on their way to turning 66-year-old retiree George Norris into an inmate in a federal penitentiary - based on his home-based business of cultivating, importing and selling orchids.
Mrs. Norris testified before the House Judiciary subcommittee on crime this summer. The hearing's topic: the rapid and dangerous expansion of federal criminal law, an expansion that is often unprincipled and highly partisan.
Chairman Robert C. Scott, Virginia Democrat, and ranking member Louie Gohmert, Texas Republican, conducted a truly bipartisan hearing (a D.C. rarity this year).
These two leaders have begun giving voice to the increasing number of experts who worry about "over-criminalization." Astronomical numbers of federal criminal laws lack specifics, can apply to almost anyone and fail to protect innocents by requiring substantial proof that an accused person acted with actual criminal intent.

More at the source.

 

[WabashMX5]

Can't say I'm surprised. Ayn Rand was right — to control a generally law-abiding populace, you have to turn them into criminals through draconian laws. Y'know, to make sure they're scared enough of .gov to be nice and compliant.

 

[INGunGuy]

Kind of reminds me of the grandmother who was arrested for buying Cold tablets because she didnt know she had bought too much....

sheesh...

INGunGuy

 

[rambone]

That'll teach that scumbag to raise orchids.

 

[indykid]

Sad thing is that there are so many "laws" that I am sure we all are guilty of something. Bet you all thought you were law abiding citizens, but I will bet some law hidden somewhere on some unknown and little used statute makes us all a criminal of some sort.

In short, it is called government out of control.

 

[Go Devil]

Sad thing is that there are so many "laws" that I am sure we all are guilty of something. Bet you all thought you were law abiding citizens, but I will bet some law hidden somewhere on some unknown and little used statute makes us all a criminal of some sort.

In short, it is called government out of control.

Or, Cannon Fodder, should it become oppressive.

Did I say that?

 

[antsi]

In short, it is called government out of control.

Two ways to achieve a tyranny:

1) The government has the power to arbitrarily imprison anyone, whenver they want.

2) Enough laws on the books, especially obscure laws, that sooner or later everyone is a criminal. At this point, the government can arbitrarily decide which laws to enforce and upon whom to enforce them.

With #2 you still get a tyrannical government - one that uses arbitrary powers to attack enemies and enforce its own power. The only difference is a pretense of rule of law.