Is a statistical analysis of the specific number actually the point? Suppose it was three felonies a year. What difference does that make when the prison sentence for each felony is also at least a year? The problem is the same; a prosecutor can throw anyone in prison simply because there are so many laws nobody can follow them all or even realize when they're violating one.
You can check the rest of the thread, but I'm not even convinced that the median person commits 3 crimes a year. Maybe there's an average of 3 felonies per day/month/year if you count all the small businesses that aren't complying with federal product/safety regulation to the letter (thus dragging up the average), but I can't think how realistically the average joe is committing 3 felonies per year.
> I can't think how realistically the average joe is committing 3 felonies per year.
Someone who smokes weed daily in a place where it's illegal could easily commit multiple crimes a day just for drug possession and consumption, for example.
Only 16% of Americans marijuana, according to Gallup. If you exclude people who are in states where it's legal/decriminalized, that'd probably be even lower. Needless to say, even if all 16% of them are criminals, that's far from the median person committing 3 felonies. Moreover the weed example isn't not even applicable to thesis of the book or the commenter that invoked it, which is that the US has so many regulations that nobody can hope to comply with them.
If 1/6 of Americans are potential repeat federal felons based on just one activity, I find it highly dubious that the other 5/6 can't be as well in the other hundreds of activities we undertake each day. Using your parents' Netflix/ Disney+/ etc password can technically be prosecuted under CFAA[1], for example. That's probably another 1/6 at least. Now it's 1/3 of the country.
[1]: https://decider.com/2022/01/04/is-it-federal-crime-to-share-...
> In 2016, the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that sharing online passwords is a crime prosecutable under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
Wikipedia on the case in question:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nosal
>A few months after leaving Korn/Ferry, Nosal solicited three Korn/Ferry employees to help him start a competing executive search business. Before leaving the company, the employees downloaded a large volume of "highly confidential and proprietary" data from Korn/Ferry's computers, including source lists, names, and contact information for executives.
Extending that ruling to netflix password sharing is a stretch.
Moreover you can't say "I can think of one activity that many americans do is a felony", and then apply induction on it to claim that the other activities americans due surely contain felonies.
>That's probably another 1/6 at least. Now it's 1/3 of the country.
That's only true if you assume the population of weed smoker and netfilx watchers don't intersect, which is... doubtful.
> If you exclude people who are in states where it's legal/decriminalized
There is no state where cannabis derivatives are federally legal.
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-II/part-1308
Yeah I agree, though include "knowingly employing unauthorized immigrants" in those averages.
Exceeding the driving speed limit is more of an "infraction" and not a crime until it becomes reckless.
> Maybe there's an average of 3 felonies per day/month/year if you count all the small businesses that aren't complying with federal product/safety regulation to the letter (thus dragging up the average), but I can't think how realistically the average joe is committing 3 felonies per year.
To begin with, let's not ignore how broad a category "small business" is. Laws requiring health inspections or licenses etc. often operate on the basis of frequency or number of patrons. If you have around a dozen people over for movie night every Saturday with the event published on social media and you all chip in for pizza, are you a food service business? For that matter, is that a public performance in violation of copyright?
If some criminals break into one of your devices or your personal website while you're traveling and you find out about it while you're out of state but don't have time to deal with it until you get back home, have you committed a crime? What if they put some illegal materials there and you clean off the device but still have a backup containing the illegal materials? What if you do delete all of them right away; is that destruction of evidence? What if there's a federal law against keeping the materials and a state law against destruction of evidence and a very specific way to comply with both of them at the same time that may not have been clearly decided by the appellate court when it was happening but has been decided by the time they bring the case against you? What if it was clear ahead of time but wasn't intuitive and you can't afford a lawyer and can't have one appointed until after you've been charged?
It's unreasonable to expect ordinary people to be able to navigate this.
>To begin with, let's not ignore how broad a category "small business" is. Laws requiring health inspections or licenses etc. often operate on the basis of frequency or number of patrons. If you have around a dozen people over for movie night every Saturday with the event published on social media and you all chip in for pizza, are you a food service business? For that matter, is that a public performance in violation of copyright?
That's what courts are for. I don't think there's any case where people tried to prosecute a shared movie night as a business, because it'd be laughed out of court. Same goes for whether it's copyright infringement or not. Moreover if you look at how authoritarian regimes work in practice, dissents are often prosecuted under national security laws, campaign finance violations, or libel laws, not because they violated the health code by having a movie night.
> That's what courts are for.
That isn't really how courts work. If you're violating the letter of the law then you are breaking the law and an actual impartial judge would enforce it against you. In practice whether they let you get away with it is based in significant part on whether or not they like you. If the judge doesn't like the administration then maybe they do like you. But if the judge doesn't like you for the same reason the administration doesn't like you then you're going to jail. And it shouldn't have to depend on that; we shouldn't have laws that people are constantly in technical violation of so that the only thing keeping anyone out of jail is prosecutorial discretion and judicial affinity.
Meanwhile you can characterize anything in a negative light. A random home kitchen typically isn't going to meet the standards for commercial operation and the prosecutor's press release isn't going to say "we're prosecuting our enemies for movie night", it's going to say "defendants were operating a for-profit restaurant in violation of zoning rules and storing uncooked meat above fish in the freezer used for storing food sold for resale in violation of the health code" and then stick them with a fine that would make them lose their house.
> Moreover if you look at how authoritarian regimes work in practice, dissents are often prosecuted under national security laws, campaign finance violations, or libel laws, not because they violated the health code by having a movie night.
When the dictator of petrolistan wants to retaliate against their enemies and those laws are available for that, sure.
When the mayor of some US town wants to do the same thing, they might very well resort to health code violations that wouldn't have otherwise been enforced.
Deterrents well short of political executions are still very much official misconduct.
Dissidents are most often prosecuted under those laws, yes, which is a good reason to not have those laws. But I’m aware of at least one case where a Cuban dissident was apprehended and prosecuted for buying cement in the black market, something the government was able to know because they most likely had somebody tagging the person 24/7 [^1]
But that exotic case is not that much needed. Laws will be abused by the powers whenever they want; you don’t need to look farther than the current USA administration and how the president is using war powers to treat poor laborers as enemy combatants and send them to concentration camps. And yet, USA’s system of government was designed in a way that should have prevented the executive to abuse power; why it has failed is another (difficult) discussion, but the founding fathers seemed well acquainted with the despotism of other nations.
[^1]: https://www.rtve.es/noticias/20090828/cuba-detiene-a-disiden...