BS: Breaking Laws and Crime

Subject: BS: Breaking Laws and Crime
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 11:46 PM

Mukasey said:
"Not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime."

I'm too speechless to comment. Anyone care to?

Subject: RE: BS: Breaking Laws and Crime
From: katlaughing
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 11:50 PM

This fellow had a good take on it, imo:

From HERE:

"Where there is evidence of criminal wrongdoing, we vigorously investigate it," Mukasey said in a speech at the American Bar Association. "And where there is enough evidence to charge someone with a crime, we vigorously prosecute. But not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime."

Wait, not every violation of the law is a crime? Isn't that the definition of a "crime"?

I realize that prosecutors may consider extenuating circumstances and prefer leniency, but this laissez faire attitude on the corruption of the Department of Justice is more than a little discouraging, especially from an attorney general. An entire team of people broke the law, violated the public trust, and got caught. The evidence is unambiguous.

But not every violation of the law is a crime. Here's hoping someone puts that on a bumper sticker and sells it at the Republican National Convention — it seems to be a slogan that summarizes the GOP attitude on law-breaking.

Maybe he was thinking of dumping tea in Boston Harbour???

Subject: RE: BS: Breaking Laws and Crime
From: Amos
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 11:51 PM

In what context did he say this?

And...inquiring minds want to know...usiing what dictionary?



A

Subject: RE: BS: Breaking Laws and Crime
From: katlaughing
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 12:05 AM

Speaking to the American Bar Association!

Subject: RE: BS: Breaking Laws and Crime
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 12:20 AM

He graduated HOW high in his class?

That quote from Humpty-Dumpty to Alice (about 'words meaning exactly what I choose') rings pretty loud when Bush officials speak.

Subject: RE: BS: Breaking Laws and Crime
From: Paul Burke
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 03:12 AM

Not every wrong is a crime. That's clear, and many people get rich by operating just this side of the law, or in areas like the internet where law is uncertain. Their effect on the victims can be far more devastating than some criminals. Firms which go (legally) bankrupt owing money to suppliers and employees, and/or having taken money in advance from customers, are an example of this. A recent UK case involved a firm that built boats. They went into liquidation, having taken 65000 pounds (over $120000) off a retired couple, who wanted the boat to live on, and had sold their house to pay for it. They ended up homeless.

Certainly not every violation of the law is a crime. Some (at least in UK law) are non- criminal civil offences.

Conversely, not every crime is a wrong. The obvious case is where a state passes unjust laws, in which case it becomes a moral duty to break the law.

Subject: RE: BS: Breaking Laws and Crime
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 03:18 AM

Plainly there are wrongs that are not illegal in any sense of the word. But there are many civil wrongs such as tort or breach of contract or trespass that are not crimes, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Breaking Laws and Crime
From: Bryn Pugh
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 04:10 AM

The 'Cat never ceases to amaze me - Jurisprudential argument already !

There again (even tho Mommy is American) US State Law and Federal Law is a mystery, to me.

I have heard it said that gambling is no crime, and that adultery is no crime, although I approve of neither.

Still - whoever said, or thought, that Law is synonymous with Justice, or Morals, or Ethics ?

Richard mentioned Torts. I wonder whether the remarks of the learned gentleman who addressed the American Bar might constitute Malfeasance, and/or Misfeasance in a Public Office ?

I'll get my gown . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Breaking Laws and Crime
From: Paul Burke
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 04:56 AM

In Mexican law, is a very little tort called a .... oh, never mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Breaking Laws and Crime
From: Mr Happy
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 08:05 AM

...tortoise??

Subject: RE: BS: Breaking Laws and Crime
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 08:08 AM

Isn't what he said the "Bush Doctrine"???

Subject: RE: BS: Breaking Laws and Crime
From: Rapparee
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 09:09 AM

If I steal, it is a crime. If I convince my library board to pay me far beyond my actual worth it's not a crime -- it would be quite legal, in fact -- even though it may be unethical and even immoral. Personally I would consider it a form of theft but there are others who wouldn't care.

If I build a building to the specs supplied by a bad engineer or architect even though I know that those specs are woefully wrong, am I guilty of a crime when the building collapses and kills people?

Not every wrong IS a crime. But every wrong should have an affordable way to right it as best the justice system can right something.

Subject: RE: BS: Breaking Laws and Crime
From: Bryn Pugh
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 10:42 AM

Ibi ius ubi remediem.

Subject: RE: BS: Breaking Laws and Crime
From: Bryn Pugh
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 10:50 AM

Rapaire posted :

"If I build a building to the specs supplied by a bad engineer or architect even though I know that those specs are woefully wrong, am I guilty of a crime when the building collapses and kills people ?"

I think in these circumstances you would be liable for Manslaughter, in England & Wales, Rapaire.

(Not that you would do anything like this, of course :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Breaking Laws and Crime
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 11:27 AM

Rapaire, that might be called criminal negligence, or maybe negligent homicide.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Breaking Laws and Crime
From: pdq
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 11:41 AM

In the United States, building plans must be done by an architect, engineer and draftsman who are all trained and tested by the government before they are granted a license to work.

Plans must be submitted well in advance so that trained experts can study the plans, including calculating concrete compaction, load-bearing capacity of beams, etc. The plans must equal or exceeded acceptable standards.

Each step of the construction process is inspected and "signed off" by trained government inspectors, many of whom were once licensed contractors themselves.

If all the proper rules are followed, it is very unlikely that the contractor can be held legally liable if the building fails. Should it be proven that he bribed inspectors or cheated on key structural components, that is a different story.

Subject: RE: BS: Breaking Laws and Crime
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 12:40 PM

Well, can somebody define "crime" for me? I always thought that it was an act which broke some law or other.

Subject: RE: BS: Breaking Laws and Crime
From: Paul Burke
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 12:56 PM

A crime is a violation of a legal statute for which the state has prescribed a punishment.

In British civil law, there is no prescribed punishment, and violations are not criminal. Other violations of statutary or common law are criminal, though many minor offences are treated as marginally criminal- some motoring offences, like speeding, are treated as not incurring a criminal record. Parking offences inhabit a sort of twilight world in which the offence is itself not criminal, but non- payment of a fine incurred is. It shares this status (I believe) with certain local taxation violations.

Subject: RE: BS: Breaking Laws and Crime
From: PoppaGator
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 01:06 PM

I would think that the word "crime," by definition, would mean violation of a law. Even if one considers it a "victimless" crime, or an act that one does not believe should be against the law.

When I saw the thread title, my immediate reaction was completely opposite to Dick's take, and to the angle most respondants here have expressed. (Of course, I didn't know who was being quoted.)

My first thought was not of privileged insiders getting away with shady practices, but rather of outsiders and/or innocents getting busted for violating laws of questionable validity: demonstrators practicing civil disobedience, pot smokers, consenting-adult sex "offenders," even users of alcohol during prohibition.

Then, as I read further down the page and the discussion moved along to consider negligence, criminal or otherwise, in design and construction, I couldn't help but think of the fraud and incompence we've learned about in regard to the faulty contruction and maintenance of levees in and around New Orleans, causing the destruction of over 80,000 residences, plenty of businesses, and huge amounts of public infrastructure, back in August 2005. And of the morally questionable, if not criminal, coverup currently being perpetrated by the American Society of Civil Engineers on behalf of the Army Corps or Engineers.

If you are interested, or if you think I'm talking shit, please refer to www.levees.org.

Subject: RE: BS: Breaking Laws and Crime
From: GUEST,Mike in DC
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 01:19 PM

According to Michael Kinsley, the real scandal in Washington is not the illegal things that people do. but those things which are perfectly legal.

Mike

Subject: RE: BS: Breaking Laws and Crime
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 02:04 PM

The Bush group has for years dealt with awkward 'laws' and definitions by simply asserting that if the president does it in the interest of national security, it is not illegal, and thus not a crime. He avoided even being asked about the constitutionality of THAT arcane idea by issuing "signing statements". He got away with it by waving 9/11 signs every time a question was asked.
   Now it is so late in the term that 1) we would have to conduct at least two impeachment proceedings and 2) everything would grind to a halt while it happened....and several other awkward situations.

   I would not, however, object to seeing a few high lawbreaker prosecuted AFTER leaving offic next year.

Subject: RE: BS: Breaking Laws and Crime
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 02:53 PM

A law for which there is no penalty for its violation isn't a law, it's a sermon.

Subject: RE: BS: Breaking Laws and Crime
From: katlaughing
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 03:03 PM

Me, too, Bill!

Subject: RE: BS: Breaking Laws and Crime
From: gnu
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 03:12 PM

Rap... "If I build a building to the specs supplied by a bad engineer or architect even though I know that those specs are woefully wrong, am I guilty of a crime when the building collapses and kills people ?"

No. Not legally, unless it can be proven that you did know and made a concious decision to do so anyway. So, not likely, even with General Condition contract clauses to the contrary. Of course, even if you were not guilty in a legal sense, you should burn in hell for eternity, but that's up to you.

PDQ... "In the United States, building plans must be done by an architect, engineer and draftsman who are all trained and tested by the government before they are granted a license to work.

Plans must be submitted well in advance so that trained experts can study the plans, including calculating concrete compaction, load-bearing capacity of beams, etc. The plans must equal or exceeded acceptable standards.

Each step of the construction process is inspected and "signed off" by trained government inspectors, many of whom were once licensed contractors themselves.

If all the proper rules are followed, it is very unlikely that the contractor can be held legally liable if the building fails. Should it be proven that he bribed inspectors or cheated on key structural components, that is a different story."

No, no, no, no, yes.

gnu, B.Sc.Eng., M.Sc.Eng., P.Eng.

Subject: RE: BS: Breaking Laws and Crime
From: pdq
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 03:22 PM

gnu...you may want to dispute point 1, but 2-4 are pretty obviously correct. Perhaps you are not in the US? Please explain why you think a building does not need to have government inspectors "sign off" step by step throughout the building process.

Subject: RE: BS: Breaking Laws and Crime
From: gnu
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 05:16 PM

Read their waivers. They do not "sign off". They never did. They never will. They require a professional stamp on the work... that is what they review... not the work, but the credentials of those RESPONSIBLE for the work.

Then, read contract law. As a third party, so called "inpsectors" have no liability under contract to other third parties. Even though they charge a fee, the fee is so minute that no liabilty can be attached (see above).

It's just common sense. If a building is built by a builder, his contracted parties for design and construction are his alone to sue if anything goes wrong... NOBODY else. Not even those injured. They must sue the builder, who, in turn, sues...

Read up on the law... I gotta cook supper.

Subject: RE: BS: Breaking Laws and Crime
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 05:23 PM

Yep, Dick...a sermon!

Subject: RE: BS: Breaking Laws and Crime
From: Rapparee
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 09:47 PM

Me, I just know that I've seen some pretty shitty things done to people and things which weren't crimes but were both unethical and immoral (in every meaning of those words).

Subject: RE: BS: Breaking Laws and Crime
From: heric
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 10:02 PM

pdq: Gnu has it right for Canada. I remember when the EIFS disaster hit Vancouver (the waterproof exterior sealing that was causing huge problems), and everyone under the sun was a target for insurance recovery, many people tried to go after the inspectors and government, to no avail.

It works pretty well to the same result in California, given government immunity absent a specific statute waiving it. Neither the inspector nor the government are liable even if the inspector knowingly and intentionally signs off on violations, or doesn't even bother to inspect before signing off.

Subject: RE: BS: Breaking Laws and Crime
From: pdq
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 10:12 PM

It's not worth an argument so I don't plan to persue it, but where I live, the building inspectors are employees of the County government and a signature by one of them is absolutely required before the next stage of construction can begin. Imagine letting the sheetrock crew in before the wiring is inspected. The inspector "signs off" and that is what it is called. BTW, "in the United States" was the intro to that post.

Subject: RE: BS: Breaking Laws and Crime
From: heric
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 10:23 PM

Yeah they "sign off." You're right the "arguments" may end up being semantic or talking in different directions.   Signing out.

Subject: RE: BS: Breaking Laws and Crime
From: gnu
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 07:05 PM

Well, they may actually "sign off" in particular jurisdictions, but not in every jurisdiction. Even when they do, it's not a "given".

No matter the jurisdiction requirements, it is of the utmost importance in contract law that one remembers this when it comes down to brass tacks in "signing off"... (I, me, gnu, am the one who penned this)... "Just because I made an error in not noticing your error during my general arrangement, cursory, and visual inspection does not relieve you of your responsibility for your error in your performance of your work under your contract and under law and under code." That usually brings THEIR lawyer back to the table VERY quickly and with tail between legs.

To say that a bunch of government inspectors are gonna save yer ass in each specific case is just not reality. The Bob Vilas and Mike Holmes of the world make a shitload of money doing TV shows, but, that is what they are... TV.

As for "arguing", I hope youse never have to do so in court. If you ever do, I am available. But I charge a shitload more than any government inspectors. And, I require payment up front and I charge a half day just to sign the contract.

Subject: RE: BS: Breaking Laws and Crime
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 07:32 PM

Are we talking about that Justice department employee who broke federal hiring laws when staffing the justice department and hiring judges. I'd be curious to know what the punishments are as proscribed by those laws. If there are no punishments, Congress should put some in there pronto!

Subject: RE: BS: Breaking Laws and Crime
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 07:42 PM

Rabbi Sol should weigh in here.

In the Talmud or perhaps another Hebraic tome, there is a teaching of 325 wrongs which under certain conditions are counteracted as if they are not wrong but actually right. I understand this but it is a subtle interpretation of every crime is not a crime.

Once you get it however the whole idea of mandatory minimums is a crime.

THe torture by the Bush administration is clearly a crime. Too bad they did not have the intelligence to know that the best way to get information is with money, sex and power...NOT sensless torture.

Subject: RE: BS: Breaking Laws and Crime
From: Rapparee
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 10:09 PM

During the Depression I had an uncle who shot rabbits and squirrels out of season; used 'em to feed his family. The game warden looked the other way because he knew how hard living was. When is a crime not a crime? When is a sin not a sin?

Subject: RE: BS: Breaking Laws and Crime
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 12:52 AM

Our friend 'Norman ' is about to get a very personal education about this subject - silly idiot dragged me into it personally by emailing me directly - hahaha - I know the right buttons to push - silly person who tried to ridicule my 'computer experience' only annoyed me more :-)

Ok leaving now.... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Breaking Laws and Crime
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 01:36 AM

Crimes may exist at common law as well as under statute.

Subject: RE: BS: Breaking Laws and Crime
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 02:38 AM

".......usiing what dictionary?"

Hmmmm

Subject: RE: BS: Breaking Laws and Crime
From: Bryn Pugh
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 05:28 AM

Murder, in England & Wales, is always charged as " contrary to the Common law".

Subject: RE: BS: Breaking Laws and Crime
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 06:09 AM

"Rabbi Sol should weigh in here."

Of course he should if he is interested in the topic. But wasn't it settled that "Rabbi" is his Mudcat name and not necessarily his profession? I don't think he should be put on the spot.

I can imagine how I would feel if I were peppered with "sailor" questions.

Subject: RE: BS: Breaking Laws and Crime
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 09:17 PM

In Texas they have a popular defense called "He had it comin"
It is an unwritten law but known to all as the law that gets murder charges dismissed.

Subject: RE: BS: Breaking Laws and Crime
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 02:10 AM

This one is interesting - down a bit...

"That's the message from the Victorian Government, which today released a list of security tips to assist people to protect their privacy on online social networking sites."

"Any attempts to threaten or harass someone through social networking sites should be reported to police, he said.

The privacy tips will be published on the government's Department of Justice website to coincide with Privacy Awareness Week, from August 24 to 30. "


What Timing.... :-)