The Exploding Number of Federal Crimes

By Jeralyn, Section Crime Policy
Posted on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:24:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Heritage Foundation has a new report on the ever increasing number of federal crimes enacted by Congress.

This study reviews the crimes newly enacted by Congress in order to: (1) update the number of federal crimes; (2) measure whether Congress continues to pass federal criminal laws at the same pace found by the ABA report; and (3) determine whether the new crimes contain a mens rea requirement, a key protection of the common law that protects those who did not intend to commit wrongful acts from unwarranted prosecution and conviction.

Bottom line: An average of 56.5 new crimes are enacted yearly.

The growth of federal crimes continues unabated. The increase of 452 over the eight-year period between 2000 and 2007 averages 56.5 crimes per year—roughly the same rate at which Congress created new crimes in the 1980s and 1990s. So for the past twenty-five years, a period over which the growth of the federal criminal law has come under increasing scrutiny, Congress has been creating over 500 new crimes per decade. That pace is not steady from year to year, however; the data indicate that Congress creates more criminal offenses in election years.

[Hat tip to Ed Still of VoteLaw.]

< Beltway Dems And The Blogs: Which Is Which? | One Million Terrorists >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Exploding Number of Federal Crimes | 35 comments (35 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

crimes (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by bocajeff on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:58:59 PM EST

It's not that the pols want to look tough on crime (which they do) but it's that people want tougher crime and punishment...that's the bigger issue.

Answer the question as to why people want pols to be tougher and then you can start to fix it.

: People are angry (none / 0) (#23)
by js991 on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 01:53:39 AM EST

and frustrated because they are losing their resources, and they are being increasingly abused, mistreated, demeaned, insulted and harmed. The conservative movement over several decades has created an atmosphere which has zero tolerance for, and which quickly and severely punishes, criticism of leaders or authorities (unless they are liberals). Anger must be expressed in some way, eventually. Since conservative authorities can't be criticized, and there are no liberal leaders, the conservative movement has designated "criminals" as the appropriate group against whom to express anger. It is the only allowable target. So, when people strike out in revenge and retaliation over general frustration, they can only strike out at the officially designated target. This was depicted quite well by Orwell in the Nineteen Eighty-Four scenes of "two minutes hate".

: People want "pols (none / 0) (#27)
by jondee on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 12:15:22 PM EST

to be tougher", generally because it's one of two possible stupid answers to a stupid question designed to frame the issue in a narrow, one-dimensional way.

Wouldn't it be nice (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Redshoes on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:01:11 PM EST

if they passed a law that for every new law (criminal or civil regulation) they had to take an existing one off the books.

Given time every liberal will become a libertarian -- not by choice but by necessity.

: I love it.... (none / 0) (#20)
by kdog on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 06:43:00 PM EST

but we;d have to repeal 2 or 3 for every new one....gotta play catch up.
Mayor Bloomberg is looking to repeal one...the idiotic cabaret law that requires a cabaret license for any establishment where 3 or more people are dancing.
Giving props where props is due...I hope the mayor is sucessful.

I am pretty sure (none / 0) (#1)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:30:02 PM EST

blogging about the increased number of federal crimes is now a federal crime.

If it isn't, some enterprising pol (none / 0) (#2)
by scribe on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:33:15 PM EST

in a close re-election contest will make sure it is.


Quite The Opposite (none / 0) (#3)
by squeaky on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:37:17 PM EST

The Pols want their tough stance on crime, and all the new laws that come with that platform, broadcast far and wide.


What better publicity, than some blogger (none / 0) (#4)
by scribe on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:40:41 PM EST

dragged screaming from their keyboard?


: Nah (none / 0) (#6)
by squeaky on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:45:38 PM EST

They would rather the bloggers go on and on. That way they can preen and say if the DFHs are worried, I must be doing something right.

: In their jammies or baby doll nighties? Victoria's (none / 0) (#19)
by jawbone on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:38:19 PM EST

Secret might want to do product placement....

And laughing at funny posts such as yours is (none / 0) (#5)
by Angel on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:43:44 PM EST

also probably illegal.


: It's not funny (none / 0) (#7)
by scribe on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:47:20 PM EST

it's sick.
And that's the shame of it all.

Ayn Rand time..... (none / 0) (#8)
by kdog on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:58:27 PM EST

one of my all-time favorite quotes...

There's no way to rule innocent men. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking the laws.

We're pretty much past that point already - (none / 0) (#11)
by scribe on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:06:56 PM EST

just try driving anywhere without breaking a traffic law....

For starters.


: I hear ya.... (none / 0) (#13)
by kdog on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:11:39 PM EST

it's one of those messes that is so massive you don't know where to start.
Keep your head down and try to stay out of the net...that's my plan. If the man wants ya he has volumes of criminal code to get ya....everybody has broken at least one.

Another colloquialism lost to the ages (none / 0) (#10)
by ruffian on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:06:20 PM EST

"Hey, it's not a federal offense".

I have nothing but gallows humor to offer here. I wish I knew how to stop this. I see nothing but growing calls for more crimes and stiffer punishments.

We live in at once the most protected and most fearful society I've ever heard of.

When will they make nicotine trafficking (none / 0) (#12)
by JSN on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:10:04 PM EST

a crime?

: What are you talking about? (none / 0) (#14)
by kdog on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:14:36 PM EST

Nicotine trafficking...what's that? Driving cigs up from Virginia to sell in NY? Those guys are heroes of the Boston Tea Party variety, not criminals.

kdog, (none / 0) (#15)
by cpinva on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:36:46 PM EST

surely you know that tobacco is the sole cause of all the ills in the world today, don't you?

Nicotine trafficking...what's that? Driving cigs up from Virginia to sell in NY? Those guys are heroes of the Boston Tea Party variety, not criminals.

if the "noxious weed" were eliminated, the world would at once be in a permanent state of peace and harmony, the average life expectency would increase to 150 years for men, and 157.25 for women. there would be no illness or disease.

no, they are the cause of all the world's corruption, disease and stink, worse than any crack dealer, and should be shot on site, as should anyone caught using the product, anywhere.

: Actually.... (none / 0) (#16)
by kdog on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:47:56 PM EST

since Sir Walter Raleigh introduced tobacco to Europe, life expectancy has skyrocketed.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it:)

Of course the (none / 0) (#17)
by Wile ECoyote on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:48:57 PM EST

irony is that most people here want an increase of federal involvement in daily lives, health care, which cars to drive, taxes, regulations, etc. The gov't has a different idea on what comes first.

: How ironic! (none / 0) (#21)
by Steve M on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 07:26:58 PM EST

Some people want the government to do one thing, others want it to do a different thing! Wild!

oh! Federal crimes by the average person. (none / 0) (#22)
by VicfromOregon on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 08:44:11 PM EST

I read the whole article then started to read the blog comments, and then i saw you're all talking about the average federal crime committed in society by a non-politician. I thought the article meant crimes committed by the federal congress. My mistake. Of course, not all that difficult to get confused, is it?

js991's emotional incontinence (none / 0) (#24)
by Anna Keppa on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:29:11 AM EST

The conservative movement over several decades has created an atmosphere which has zero tolerance for, and which quickly and severely punishes, criticism of leaders or authorities (unless they are liberals). Anger must be expressed in some way, eventually. Since conservative authorities can't be criticized, and there are no liberal leaders,

LOL!! Why not go over to Kos or DU to see the posters being "quickly and severely punished"! AS WE ALL KNOW, those who have referred to Booosh as ChimpyMcHalliburton are now locked up, in holding pens much like the "Freedom Cages" the Dems will be housing protesters in at their Denver convention.

Is it too much to ask for some data supporting the claim that conservatives are locking liberals up for their political beliefs?

No liberal leaders? Then who is Barack Obama? Is Hillary a potted plant?

It is a hard FACT that conservatives and libertarians also oppose the "criminalization of everything", because such expansion of government power can be used for oppressive purposes. But there is NO EVIDENCE anyone's going to jail for their political beliefs.

(I suspect the definition of trolling here includes "pointing out liberal error", so I doubt my comments will see the light of day.) so much for "diversity".

you are correct (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:47:19 AM EST

that many conservatives have been strong proponents of states' right and therefore against the mass federalization of criminal laws. I applaud them for that.

Domestic violence is a good example. (Another Joe Biden folly to federalize it.)

Your comment should not have included the personal insult contained in the subject line of your comment. If you want to comment further here, please lose the denigrating tone and the insulting words. Thank you.


: emotional incontinence (none / 0) (#31)
by Anna Keppa on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 10:25:23 PM EST

Don't lecture me.
If that's an "personal insult", you have led an extraordinary sheltered life, have an extraordinarily thin skin, and are not ready for political life.
By your prissy standards, thousands of powerful books featuring political invective (a word you would profit from by looking up) would never have been written.
Start with Voltaire. Then move on to Paine. Try Junius. Move on to Lenin.
etc. etc.
I doubt you have any idea what I am talking about.
Or care.
what ev.

Conservatives.... (none / 0) (#26)
by kdog on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:48:01 AM EST

wholeheartedly support our tyrannical drug laws for the most part...which I always found funny since it so clearly violates so-called conservative principles of minimal government intrusion and individual liberty. I understand the overall liberal support of drug laws....some liberals would make it a federal crime to not eat your vegetables...but conservatives?


: Any liberals out there? (none / 0) (#34)
by Anna Keppa on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:44:28 AM EST

"National Review", America's most influential conservative magazine , has FOR YEARS been possesstion and use.
Is it too much to ask the flakes posting on this website to do some research?
Why, yes. Yes, it is.

No evidence of people going to jail for (none / 0) (#28)
by splashy on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 01:59:53 PM EST

Political beliefs?

Perhaps Siegelman that was put in jail in Alabama on trumped up charges because the Repubs there didn't like his popularity would beg to differ. I don't really know for sure, but that sure sounds like political beliefs being the cause of his jail time to me.

Dem politicians have been prosecuted for trumped up charges before elections many times by Repub lawyers. That's one of the reasons why the whole attorneygate thing happened. Sounds like persecution for political beliefs to me.

Oh, and how about anti-war folks? Many of them end up in jail, supposedly for disturbing the peace, or some other charge, but we really know that many times it's because they are anti-war and won't stay in their "designated place."


the topic is the creation of federal crimes (none / 0) (#29)
by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:55:55 PM EST

not who they choose to charge them with.

This is about the feds enacting unnecessary criminal laws -- unnecessary either because the conduct is already and adequately prohibited by state law or because the conduct criminalized shouldn't be considered a crime at all or a federal crime.


: I apologize for going OT. n/t (none / 0) (#30)
by splashy on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:33:04 PM EST

: Jeralyn you are dense (none / 0) (#35)
by Anna Keppa on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:49:04 AM EST

Your attempt to truncate this discussion to whatever YOU SEE FIT marks you as just another stalinoid.
OBVIOUSLY if, as argued, the feds choose to charge only leftists it is material to argue that the laws, AS ENFORCED, are unfair.
In the world of thought, you aren't ready to leave your training wheels and ride a bicycle.
You should go back to working at a HELP desk.

Seligman et al (none / 0) (#32)
by Anna Keppa on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 10:35:02 PM EST

Seligman? He was up to his eyeballs in a number of shady deals. Saying he was put in jail BECAUSE of his political beliefs is a huge stretch. What political beliefs,....exactly??

"Oh, and how about anti-war folks? Many of them end up in jail, supposedly for disturbing the peace, or some other charge, but we really know that many times it's because they are anti-war and won't stay in their "designated place." "

Whaaaaaa....? They go to jail for a cuppla days for disturbing the peace, and then are let out?

May I introduce you, sir, to real political oppression, like Stalin's Lubyanka prison, where you were most likely to come out a couple days later, but with a bullet in your head??

I would say you were emotionally incontinent, but that's an apparent no-no, so I will try this: stop wetting the bed, sir!!

"
Dem politicians have been prosecuted for trumped up charges before elections many times by Repub lawyers."

LOL! Name the cases! Then avoid naming the cases where the prosecutor is a Dem.

"That's one of the reasons why the whole attorneygate thing happened. Sounds like persecution for political beliefs to me."

That's because you are a MORON. Clinton fired ALL but one of the justice dept prosecuting lawyers as one of the first acts of his first term. Where were you then --- but I know! You were in high school or college, right!


Seligman et al (none / 0) (#33)
by Anna Keppa on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:40:42 AM EST