Criminalizing Everyone

Post Reply New Topic

Criminalizing Everyone
By Brian W. Walsh

"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 "overcriminalization." 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.

Mr. Norris ended up spending almost two years in prison because he didn't have the proper paperwork for some of the many orchids he imported. The orchids were all legal - but Mr. Norris and the overseas shippers who had packaged the flowers had failed to properly navigate the many, often irrational, paperwork requirements the U.S. imposed when it implemented an arcane international treaty's new restrictions on trade in flowers and other flora.

The judge who sentenced Mr. Norris had some advice for him and his wife: "Life sometimes presents us with lemons." Their job was, yes, to "turn lemons into lemonade."

The judge apparently failed to appreciate how difficult it is to run a successful lemonade stand when you're an elderly diabetic with coronary complications, arthritis and Parkinson's disease serving time in a federal penitentiary. If only Mr. Norris had been a Libyan terrorist, maybe some European official at least would have weighed in on his behalf to secure a health-based mercy release.

Krister Evertson, another victim of overcriminalization, told Congress, "What I have experienced in these past years is something that should scare you and all Americans." He's right. Evertson, a small-time entrepreneur and inventor, faced two separate federal prosecutions stemming from his work trying to develop clean-energy fuel cells.

The feds prosecuted Mr. Evertson the first time for failing to put a federally mandated sticker on an otherwise lawful UPS package in which he shipped some of his supplies. A jury acquitted him, so the feds brought new charges. This time they claimed he technically had "abandoned" his fuel-cell materials - something he had no intention of doing - while defending himself against the first charges. Mr. Evertson, too, spent almost two years in federal prison.

As George Washington University law professor Stephen Saltzburg testified at the House hearing, cases like these "illustrate about as well as you can illustrate the overreach of federal criminal law." The Cato Institute's Timothy Lynch, an expert on overcriminalization, called for "a clean line between lawful conduct and unlawful conduct." A person should not be deemed a criminal unless that person "crossed over that line knowing what he or she was doing." Seems like common sense, but apparently it isn't to some federal officials.

Former U.S. Attorney General Richard Thornburgh's testimony captured the essence of the problems that worry so many criminal-law experts. "Those of us concerned about this subject," he testified, "share a common goal - to have criminal statutes that punish actual criminal acts and [that] do not seek to criminalize conduct that is better dealt with by the seeking of regulatory and civil remedies." Only when the conduct is sufficiently wrongful and severe, Mr. Thornburgh said, does it warrant the "stigma, public condemnation and potential deprivation of liberty that go along with [the criminal] sanction."

The Norrises' nightmare began with the search in October 2003. It didn't end until Mr. Norris was released from federal supervision in December 2008. His wife testified, however, that even after he came home, the man she had married was still gone. He was by then 71 years old. Unsurprisingly, serving two years as a federal convict - in addition to the years it took to defend unsuccessfully against the charges - had taken a severe toll on him mentally, emotionally and physically.

These are repressive consequences for an elderly man who made mistakes in a small business. The feds should be ashamed, and Mr. Evertson is right that everyone else should be scared. Far too many federal laws are far too broad.

Mr. Scott and Mr. Gohmert have set the stage for more hearings on why this places far too many Americans at risk of unjust punishment. Members of both parties in Congress should follow their lead.

Brian W. Walsh is senior legal research fellow in the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... _top5_read

They can get you for just about anything it is very scary

We passed this point long ago. Study the law and you learn that everyone is a criminal for some reason or another. Doing the common sense concept of knowing right from wrong means nothing anymore. You can do what morally seems right and common sense says is right but commit a criminal act based on what someone wrote into the legal code.

The law currently is so complex and nebulous that no judge, cop or lawyer knows all of it...yet "ignorance of the law" is no excuse.

You are free at the discretion of the state. That is where our society has descended to.

Think of this next time you hear a fool, policeman or a politicain saying 'if you're innocent you have nothing to fear'

The problem seems to be getting worse in other parts of the so called civilised Western world too. In England there are often arrests for the most ridiculous of "crimes" which only serve to make people distrust the police and legal system.

Take this trivial example: A young man found a mobile phone in the street. Being honest he picked it up and handed it in at a nearby police station expecting that to be the end of it. No. The police arrested him and put him in a cell for four hours and charged him with "stealing by finding" whatever that is supposed to mean!

I'm sure that the right wing group that wrote the article won't admit to it, but this is tied to the growing Prison Industrial Complex and the scheme where by a private company runs and profits off a prison on a per head basis and they send money to Washington or to state capitals to see to it that more people are sent their way so as to make even more money that they can send to bribe politicians, all legal of course.

America, land of the free....you just gotta love capitalism

This is ridiculous!

The US has a largest percentage of it's population in jails than any other country in the world. One out of every 31 adults in the US are behind bars. Approximately two-thirds are awaiting trial. The majority are males between the ages of 18-35, 1 in 20 in that age group. Most of these people are being held for non-violent crimes. And it only cost taxpayers close to $51 billion a year to hold them.

Gotta love the USA

I know I made a previous post on this thread, but I just have to say this: Over criminalization is a serious problem which can result in both the arrest(s) of those who are not only innocent of a crime, but also those who exercise their rights. It makes me angry to see this crap going on and I will NOT tolerate it!! !! ! It is against the constitution to subject a person to unreasonable search and seizure, I will now quote the 4th amendment in its entirety:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"

This means that the government is NOT allowed to come into your house without a warrant, and that warrant MUST have been issued upon PROBABLE CAUSE supported by an oath or affirmation, and it must also describe the location/area to be searched as well as the persons or things which are to be seized from that location. It also means that the government cannot search your papers (such as documents) or your person (body). I am sick of the government's disregard for the Constitution, and I will NOT take it anymore!! !! If I get shot in the process, then I will die fighting for my freedom as a citizen of the United States. GIVE ME LIBERTY, OR GIVE ME DEATH!