Yes. That’s exactly how it works, New York Times. See, pretty much ALL actions remain legal when lawmakers choose not to criminalize them.
The opposite state of affairs would be actions that become illegal even though lawmakers have not criminalized them. How would that work, I wonder?
A more fair-minded commentary would acknowledge the simple fact that DeLay’s actions were not illegal. But no --not the New York Times, which must ominously warn its readers that many of Mr. DeLay’s actions remain legal only because lawmakers have chosen not to criminalize them.
I’m willing to bet the writer understands that. They are just opining that what Delay did should be illegal or (guessing) considered unethical and worthy of some sort of repercussion (formal censure perhaps).
Here’s a thread chronicling Tom’s legal travails since 2004: Is Tom DeLay Going to Jail?
It’s too bad tomndebb decided to lock the thread before we got any sort of resolution. Perhaps this thread’ll be allowed to stay open until justice is served, come 2015 or 2020.
Probably not what the writer was going for, but I find that sentence hilarious. “Well technically is was legal, but only because it was never made illegal!”
But surely, the very definition of ‘criminal’ is : That which is in contravention of the criminal law?
So you cannot, by definition, be a criminal for doing something that is not illegal.
Certainly you can state a belief that something someone has done should be illegal but that’s not the same as saying someone is a criminal when they are, factually, not.
It’s not a ‘nitpicky word game’, it’s fundamental.
A criminal is someone who breaks the law, not someone who does something of which you, personally, disapprove. (Or anyone else, of course.)
You were the one who said “Seems very apparent to me that the writer believes what Delay did is criminal on the face of it and is bemoaning that it is not illegal.”
Which seems to imply that you don’t understand the link between ‘criminal’ and ‘illegal’.
Amen. Guilt, innocence, evidence, crime … these are all just words. Mere semantics. The law should be decided on the firm foundation of what we know in our hearts is right. And when I say “our,” I mean “my.”
In everyday conversation people will say things like, “The Cubs losing that game was criminal!” Do you think the person really meant an actual crime was committed?
If it makes you happier modify my sentence to say, “Seems very apparent to me that the writer believes what Delay did should be criminal, as is apparent on the face of it, and is bemoaning that it is not illegal.”
The author knows that. He’s making a rhetorical point. The editorial argues that “some of Washington’s worst big-money practices remain either legal or far too difficult to prosecute” and that “Congress must do a lot more to prove its commitment to real ethics reform” by, presumably, choosing to criminalize these actions.
The focus of the article is not just that “there oughta be a law” (although it’s partially that, too), but that lawmakers are being less than enthusiastic about enacting a law that would restrict what they themselves can do. And so the author is emphasizing here not that lawmakers have not chosen to criminalize these practices (which of course makes them perfectly legal), but that they have chosen not to criminalize these practices. A subtle distinction, but one that points a finger at Congress, which is the thrust of the editorial.
Idiotic phrasing in the editorial. Completely unsurprising that it’s pointed out here.
Also completely obvious what the author meant to say - DeLay’s conduct should be illegal, and only aren’t because Congress is very careful not to write laws that might one day implicate them and their seedy dealings.
And finally, it’s an editorial, not a news piece. We could probably have a thread every single day laughing at stupid things said in editorials at the major newspapers (from proponents of both sides).
A perhaps more interesting debate - should DeLay’s conduct be illegal?
Therefore the writer could make a better and more effective rhetorical point by doing what I suggested. Pelosi is a member of Congress, and is doing what the writer claims to think should be made illegal.
If the idea of the editorial is to push Congress into acting, why wait until years after Delay is out of Congress to complain?
You know as well as I do that it will not be mentioned again - until it can be used against a Republican.
:shrugs:
It’s the same thing as the filibuster, which for the NYT was an important protection of democracy when Democrats were in the minority in Congress and then instantly flipped to being a horrible violation of the principles on which this country was founded the instant the Dems took over.