# I am a multiple felon: the overcriminalization of America **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 13, 2006, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-multiple-felon-the-overcriminalization-of-america/344342 "2006-02-13T21:52:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-multiple-felon-the-overcriminalization-of-america/344342/61 "2006-02-14T18:34:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If I fail to keep a record of my gambling losses, I cannot deduct them to offset my gambling winnings. This makes compliance with this law advisable, practical, and desirable. > > I don’t play the ponies. I do report winnings from “friendly” poker games – and I deduct losses from friendly poker games. There’s nothing to it. I have a pocket PC; it has a spreadsheet, and I make a notation at the end of each event. . Just so as everyone knows- since **Bricker** hasn’t made this clear- you can ONLY deduct Gambling Losses up to the extent of winnings. In other words, you can NOT deduct a NET gambling loss. Not even Professional Gamblers (although it is possible that they might have a NET _overall_ loss due to other expenses) There is another question the IRS dances around- where do you “net”? Clearly, if I play poker on a given night- win a few hands, and lose a few hands; if the NET is a loss, then I don’t have to report the one single hand where I won a large jackpot. But how about if I play every week, and win $500 one week out of four and lose $1000 over the rest? Do I report $500 on line 21 then $500 on Schd A? (I can’t report $1000, as that would mean an overall NET loss for a taxable year). The IRS seems to say yes. But if I do so, that $500 “above the line” doesn’t \*really \* cancel out that $500 “below the line” for many convoluted arcane tax reasons- the easiest of which is the fact you might not have enough other itemized deductions to Itemize. So, nigh everyone considers it a “wash” unless there’s a 1099 involved. That’s the way my Brother- the Enrolled Agent- does it, anyway- and he’s won in Appeals several times on this issue. Bricker is correctly using a Lawyers definition of Crime" vs a laymans definition. Laymen usually consider anything “against the law” a “crime”- but many such violations are “infractions” or "code violations’ not really crimes. ---
**Author:** ![cowgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8c91f0/32.png) [@cowgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cowgirl)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-multiple-felon-the-overcriminalization-of-america/344342/62 "2006-02-14T19:03:23Z")
> [@Metacom](#): > > _Is_ it harmful? Is selective enforcement and prosecution really bad? > > Or is there some wisdom in making some behaviour illegal, but only going after it legally when it becomes a problem? > > I don’t think the question is so clear-cut. The key problem as I see it is that such laws massively enable selective enforcement according to things like race (and, less frequently, gender and mental health and sexual preference and so forth). If they were selectively enforced only according to harm, there would not be a problem, but that is not the case. I believe these kinds of laws play a huge and critical role in the shockingly disproportionate numbers of young black and native men in Canadian and American prisons. I have no reason to believe that my city’s police force has the capability to enforce only on the basis of harm, and not at all on the basis of race. If they earned this trust, I would be more accepting of your argument. ---
**Author:** ![Sal\_Ammoniac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8dc957/32.png) [@Sal\_Ammoniac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sal_Ammoniac)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-multiple-felon-the-overcriminalization-of-america/344342/63 "2006-02-14T19:04:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And what, may I ask, is the definition of “cumpulsive gambler” which you believe I fit? From an earlier post of yours: “I do report winnings from ‘friendly’ poker games – and I deduct losses from friendly poker games. There’s nothing to it. I have a pocket PC; it has a spreadsheet, and I make a notation at the end of each event.” If that’s not compulsive, I don’t know what is! ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-multiple-felon-the-overcriminalization-of-america/344342/64 "2006-02-14T19:05:49Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#): > > For the purposes of this thread, that distinction, although true, seems irrelevant. A mere traffic offense can require the appearance before a judge and submission to a penalty, even if it isn’t the jail or prison time that a commission of crime would require. The OP SuaSponte referred to the laws he’d broken, which included traffic offenses. Differeniating between traffic offenses and crimes is a difference that makes no difference, other than to hair splitters. I’ll gladly stipulate that both friend Bricker and Martin Hyde, as well as my mother, have never ever broken any laws of any kind whatsoever. Most of the rest of us, myself included, cannot make that claim. But note that the OP is specifically talking about FELONIES. As in, crimes punishable by a year in jail and/or over a $1000 fine. Even if talking on your cell phone will driving were a crime, it wouldn’t be a felony. I’ve drank beer before I was 21, but that wasn’t a felony. I’ve eaten “samples” from the bulk bins in the grocery store. I might be accused of stealing, but it wouldn’t be felony theft. I’ve urinated in public when there was absolutely no other alternative except pissing my pants, but public urination isn’t a felony. I’ve exceeded the speed limit, but that isn’t a felony. I’ve failed to report barter income on my taxes, but that wasn’t a felony violation, if the IRS ever found out about it they’d ask me to pay taxes on it rather than try to send me to jail. So while I’ve violated some laws, I’m not sure what felonies I’ve committed. I’ve never smoked pot or other drugs, I’ve never driven drunk, I’ve never gotten in a bar fight, I’ve never assaulted a police officer with a deadly weapon. I am not a laywer, but I honestly can’t think of any felonies I might have committed. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-multiple-felon-the-overcriminalization-of-america/344342/65 "2006-02-14T19:31:14Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > I’ve urinated in public when there was absolutely no other alternative except pissing my pants, but public urination isn’t a felony. I know of a person charged for “indecent exposure” as a result of that. It was overturned, but required a high powered and expensive attorney. If convicted they would have been a registered sex offender. ---
**Author:** ![Sal\_Ammoniac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8dc957/32.png) [@Sal\_Ammoniac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sal_Ammoniac)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-multiple-felon-the-overcriminalization-of-america/344342/66 "2006-02-14T19:35:03Z")
I’ve heard this is true of Massachusetts as well (that is, that you could be required to register as a sex offender for urinating in public). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-multiple-felon-the-overcriminalization-of-america/344342/67 "2006-02-14T19:35:39Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#): > > For the purposes of this thread, that distinction, although true, seems irrelevant. A mere traffic offense can require the appearance before a judge and submission to a penalty, even if it isn’t the jail or prison time that a commission of crime would require. The OP SuaSponte referred to the laws he’d broken, which included traffic offenses. Differeniating between traffic offenses and crimes is a difference that makes no difference, other than to hair splitters. I don’t agree. The OP asks, “So, are a felon? Should you be?” The OP is himself a lawyer, and is well aware of the distinction between felonies and misdemeanors - even though both are crimes. To lump in infractions as though relevant to the issue raised by the OP is to miss the boat. He’s asking if the state of the law makes ordinary people _criminals_ regularly… he’s well aware that adding in infractions covers almost every adult. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-multiple-felon-the-overcriminalization-of-america/344342/68 "2006-02-14T19:40:10Z")
> [@Sal Ammoniac](#): > > From an earlier post of yours: “I do report winnings from ‘friendly’ poker games – and I deduct losses from friendly poker games. There’s nothing to it. I have a pocket PC; it has a spreadsheet, and I make a notation at the end of each event.” > > If that’s not compulsive, I don’t know what is! Well, [this link](http://psychcentral.com/library/gambling_sx.htm) gives a list of symptoms one might find in a compulsive gambler. The list does not include “keeping careful track of losses and winnings.” Nor do I appear to fit the symptoms listed. Do you have a cite that supports your version of the term? ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-multiple-felon-the-overcriminalization-of-america/344342/69 "2006-02-14T19:48:29Z")
> [@Sal Ammoniac](#): > > I’ve heard this is true of Massachusetts as well (that is, that you could be required to register as a sex offender for urinating in public). That’s where it was. Obligatory Boston joke: Sal is walking down the street and sees a man lyng on the ground, bent over, and moaning. Sal says: “Are you all right?” Man gasps: “Take…me…to…hospital” Sal asks: “Peter Bent?” Man says: “Bent?, she damn near bit it off!” ---
**Author:** ![Sal\_Ammoniac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8dc957/32.png) [@Sal\_Ammoniac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sal_Ammoniac)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-multiple-felon-the-overcriminalization-of-america/344342/70 "2006-02-14T19:54:44Z")
**Bricker** , I was just having a little fun at your expense. By “compulsive” I meant punctilious to a degree that few people are. Consider the remark retracted, with my apologies. ---
**Author:** ![Sal\_Ammoniac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8dc957/32.png) [@Sal\_Ammoniac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sal_Ammoniac)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-multiple-felon-the-overcriminalization-of-america/344342/71 "2006-02-14T19:58:59Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > Obligatory Boston joke: > > Sal is walking down the street and sees a man lyng on the ground, bent over, and moaning. > > Sal says: “Are you all right?” > Man gasps: “Take…me…to…hospital” > Sal asks: “Peter Bent?” > Man says: “Bent?, she damn near bit it off!” This joke only makes sense if you realize that “Peter Bent” refers to the old Peter Bent Brigham Hospital, now Brigham & Women’s. And now back to your regularly scheduled OP. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-multiple-felon-the-overcriminalization-of-america/344342/72 "2006-02-14T20:30:07Z")
> [@Sal Ammoniac](#): > > **Bricker** , I was just having a little fun at your expense. By “compulsive” I meant punctilious to a degree that few people are. Consider the remark retracted, with my apologies. (I got it…it was funny!) ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-multiple-felon-the-overcriminalization-of-america/344342/73 "2006-02-14T21:26:16Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > Not a felon, but should be. The whole pot thing puts most of us in that bag. Except it’s decriminalized in many places, such as California. It’s still against the law, but it’s not a felony. Or actually, IIRC, even a misdemeanor. It’s an infraction. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-multiple-felon-the-overcriminalization-of-america/344342/74 "2006-02-14T21:28:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Nope. I have never committed a felonious act, or an act as a juvenile that would have been a felony if committed by an adult. > > Traffic infractions? Sure, plenty of times. But those are not criminal in nature. Technically, they are. They are Class C misdemeanors in Texas. I think some other states call them petty misdemeanors. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-multiple-felon-the-overcriminalization-of-america/344342/75 "2006-02-14T21:49:22Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > I always thought it was amazing that GWB didn’t have more compassion for felons. From what we know of his past he commited quite a few of them. Imagine how different his life (and ours) would have been if he were a convicred felon and not able to run for office. > > I agree with the OP. I have done a bunch of things (mostly in the past) that are felonies, though all of them were “victimless” to one degree or another. That is probably because most people have an ‘us vs. them’ attitude towards crime. People believe criminals are a small group of no good nicks when in reality we have all broken the law and many criminals are somewhat sad (as an example, there are more seriously mentally ill people in prison than in mental hospitals in the US) Most people don’t realize that we’d all be in jail for something or other if law enforcement was 100% efficient. [http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p040101a.html](http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p040101a.html) I have committed a few misdemeanors, but no felonies that I know of. But I’m sure there may have been some. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-multiple-felon-the-overcriminalization-of-america/344342/76 "2006-02-14T21:55:23Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Please expound, because, I don’t follow. I disagree that the simple fact that a majority of people, myself included, have broken the law doesn’t make the law wrong. In a vast majority of cases, the laws are there to protect people, property, or law. There are certainly stupid laws, like sodomy between consenting adults or driving while barefoot, so, in a sense there is overcriminalization, but, by and large, the laws are generally necessary. Would you legalize any of the felonies you’ve committed? Two questions and a comment. “The laws are there to protect people, property, or **law** ”? Law enacted to protect law? Maybe I’m being particularly dense today, but I don’t understand this one. Can you give an example? Why would a law need protection? Second question. Do you feel there is a good faith effort by legislatures to repeal bad laws? If not, do you see this as an abdication of their responsibilities and a shifting of the burden of dealing with trespasses against “stupid laws” onto the shoulders of the law enforcement/district attorney departments? Comment. I disagree with selective prosecution as a method of dialing back the effects of stupid laws. The entire point of a society based on rule of law is equality under the law. You can’t have equality under the law if the prosecutor/police in one jurisdiction look the other way when the prosecutor/police in another do not. People like Roy Moore exist and life in such a jurisdiction is very different from life in a different jurisdiction. I can understand the desire of a prosecutor to have wide lattitude to charge a suspect under statutes which allow the punishment to fit the crime. In some cases getting someone off the streets and out of circulation is as important a concern as anything else. I have always felt it was a necessary evil to bust someone for what you could get them on even if their major offense was something unproveable. The canonical case being taking Al Capone down for tax irregularities. This does not mean I want this kind of discretionary power in the hands of individuals if it can be avoided. I would rather have the law be as black-and-white as possible without having to worry about the shades of grey associated with particular jurisdictions and their prosecutors. While I have no doubt most of them are good people doing hard jobs, I would rather have us all beholden to a published, voted on by representatives, and common law than have such large lattitude be in the hands of individuals. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![zamboniracer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9a140/32.png) [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-multiple-felon-the-overcriminalization-of-america/344342/77 "2006-02-14T22:12:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t agree. The OP asks, “So, are a felon? Should you be?” The OP is himself a lawyer, and is well aware of the distinction between felonies and misdemeanors - even though both are crimes. To lump in infractions as though relevant to the issue raised by the OP is to miss the boat. He’s asking if the state of the law makes ordinary people _criminals_ regularly… he’s well aware that adding in infractions covers almost every adult. With respect Bricker, while you accurately state the last line of SuaSponte’s OP, the thrust of his OP hangs not on the difference that you and he and I and the other lawyers here understand to be the difference between “crimes” and “infractions” (or “Citations” or “petty misdemeanors” or what have you) but that in our over-officious society many of us break laws every day. If this thread is to just have us all relate our felonies, or close calls with the law, or lack thereof, then it’s not much of a great debate. It’s not my call, but if that was this thread is for, or what it has evolved into, it probably should be moved. ---
**Author:** ![Sunspace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunspace/32/1250_2.png) [@Sunspace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunspace)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-multiple-felon-the-overcriminalization-of-america/344342/78 "2006-02-14T22:18:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But I figure no one ever got in trouble for being too scrupulous. Isn’t there a Catholic sin called ‘excessive scrupulosity’? Of course, that brings in the whole question of Church law, starting with which church, if any, do you belong to… ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-multiple-felon-the-overcriminalization-of-america/344342/79 "2006-02-14T22:18:24Z")
> [@Mtgman](#): > > Two questions and a comment. “The laws are there to protect people, property, or **law** ”? Law enacted to protect law? Maybe I’m being particularly dense today, but I don’t understand this one. Can you give an example? Why would a law need protection? In the process of cutting and pasting, I left the word “law” in the sentence incorrectly. Feel free to replace the word law with the phrase “cuddly, fluffy puppies”. Sorry. > [@Mtgman](#): > > Second question. Do you feel there is a good faith effort by legislatures to repeal bad laws? If not, do you see this as an abdication of their responsibilities and a shifting of the burden of dealing with trespasses against “stupid laws” onto the shoulders of the law enforcement/district attorney departments? No there is no good faith effort to repeal stupid laws, and yes it does “shift the burden”. > [@Mtgman](#): > > Comment. I disagree with selective prosecution as a method of dialing back the effects of stupid laws. The entire point of a society based on rule of law is equality under the law. You can’t have equality under the law if the prosecutor/police in one jurisdiction look the other way when the prosecutor/police in another do not. But there needs to be some flexiblity in law enforcement. While equality under the law is vitally important, law, especially criminal laws, need to have some flexibility to deal with differing circumstances. This flexibility can certainly be abused, but a criminal statute is general in nature, and cannot possibly deal with every circumstance. That’s one of the problems with the inflexibility of mandatory sentencing, it takes away judicial discretion in determining what is fair and just. And what is fair and just, which is in my view the purpose of law, changes with every circumstance. It’s not perfect, but I think it’s better than the other options. > [@Mtgman](#): > > I can understand the desire of a prosecutor to have wide lattitude to charge a suspect under statutes which allow the punishment to fit the crime. In some cases getting someone off the streets and out of circulation is as important a concern as anything else. I have always felt it was a necessary evil to bust someone for what you could get them on even if their major offense was something unproveable. The canonical case being taking Al Capone down for tax irregularities. This does not mean I want this kind of discretionary power in the hands of individuals if it can be avoided. I would rather have the law be as black-and-white as possible without having to worry about the shades of grey associated with particular jurisdictions and their prosecutors. While I have no doubt most of them are good people doing hard jobs, I would rather have us all beholden to a published, voted on by representatives, and common law than have such large lattitude be in the hands of individuals. Which, again, introduces inflexibility in the criminal justice system. While having the exact same punishment for every individual criminal infraction will lead to more equality under the law, I value justice more. Especially when a great many legislators are more concerned with looking “tough on crime” than doing justice. It is a defininte give and take, but I have yet to see a better system. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2006, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-multiple-felon-the-overcriminalization-of-america/344342/80 "2006-02-14T22:38:27Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Technically, they are. They are Class C misdemeanors in Texas. I think some other states call them petty misdemeanors. TECHNICALLY, they are not. In Virginia, Va. Code § 46.2-113 specifically provides that traffic violations are, unless specified otherwise, NOT criminal in nature, but “traffic infractions,” punishable by a fine of not more than $250. Class C misdemeanors in Texas appear to be criminal in nature. Texas Penal Code § 12.23 provides that Class C misdemeanors can be punished by a fine not to exceed $500. The Texas Transportation Code - not the penal code - defines most traffic offenses. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-multiple-felon-the-overcriminalization-of-america/344342.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-a-multiple-felon-the-overcriminalization-of-america/344342.md?page=5)