Reading this SD column, it was mentioned that murder is a state crime and not a federal. That’s kind of weird to me. I’ve always assumed that federal crimes were more severe and state ones less severe, like maybe public urination is a state matter but kidnapping was federal.
Looking at thiswebsite, it lists some state vs. federal crimes. There doesn’t seem to be some overarching reason to why some are state and some are federal (and some are both). I’ve always thought it was so the feds aren’t inundated with a bunch of low level crimes and would rather just leave that up to the state and focus on the more serious ones. What’s the reason for the seemingly random separation of crime categories?
The general rule is that the crime must either be against the federal government, or cross state lines. Cybercrime is a good example. Unless somebody is hacking their local credit union, then they are almost invariably effecting people in multiple states.
While murder without special circumstances isn’t a federal crime, it becomes federal if it involves killing federal employees or foreign diplomats, takes place on federal property, or involves crossing state lines, interstate commerce, or national security.
The Constitution? And it’s amendments defines the basis for Federal Law, all other laws are left to the individual states to decide upon. At least that’s the way the explained it to me in Civics class.
Quoting from the LOPEZ gun free zone case;
3 Under our federal system, the" ‘States possess primary authority for defining and enforcing the criminal law.’’’ Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U. S. 619,635 (1993) (quoting Engle v. Isaac, 456 U. S. 107, 128 (1982)); see also Screws v. United States, 325 U. S. 91, 109 (1945) (plurality opinion) (“Our national government is one of delegated powers alone. Under our federal system the administration of criminal justice rests with the States except as Congress, acting within the scope of those delegated powers, has created offenses against the United States”). When Congress criminalizes conduct already denounced as criminal by the States, it effects a "‘change in the sensitive relation between federal and state criminal jurisdiction.’’’ United States v. Enmons, 410 U. S. 396, 411-412 (1973) (quoting United States v. Bass, 404 U. S. 336, 349 (1971)). The Government acknowledges that § 922(q) “displace[s] state policy choices in … that its prohibitions apply even in States that have chosen not to outlaw the conduct in question.” Brief for United States 29, n. 18; see also Statement of President George Bush on Signing the Crime Control Act of 1990, 26 Weekly Compo of Pres. Doc. 1944, 1945 (Nov. 29, 1990) (“Most egregiously, section [922(q)] inappropriately overrides legitimate State firearms laws with a new and unnecessary Federal law. The policies reflected in these provisions could legitimately be adopted by the States, but they should not be imposed upon the States by the Congress”).
The idea that federal crimes are generally more severe than state crimes is flat-out wrong in the U.S. at least. The vast majority of criminal law is at the state level and that includes many of the ones with the most severe punishments including most death penalty and some of the most harsh maximum security prisons.
To understand why that is, you need to understand that the United States was set up as a federal republic. I don’t know if you are American or not but a lot of non-Americans have trouble understanding that concept in general. The U.S. isn’t a hierarchy with the federal government at the top and the state governments mere subdivisions of that. Instead, the state and federal governments are both sovereign entities that split different types of power. Most powers, including the vast majority of criminal law, are at the state level because the Constitution says so. The federal government does not even have the jurisdiction over most criminal law if it wanted to.
There are many exceptions to that of course. Some examples of federal crimes are crimes that involve federal employees (even clerks in the Post Office), crimes like treason that are against the nation as a whole, large scale drug smuggling, racketeering (larger scale organized crime that crosses state lines), and generally any crimes that involve multiple states like kidnapping someone and taking them into a different state. Those are necessary exceptions because individual states generally cannot prosecute crimes that involve multiple states.
The U.S. a whole lot of different law enforcement agencies and the rules about which one has jurisdiction over a given crime can become complicated. For example the federal government has the FBI, National Park Police, Postal Inspectors, U.S. Marshals and a bunch more. The states have local, county and state police plus many more. None of those agencies are higher than any in all circumstances. It depends on the crime and were the case will be prosecuted. The FBI may agree to assist with a case in Wyoming for example but may still have to defer to the local Sheriff if the crime is a state crime. In another case, those roles may be reversed.
There are at least two Amendments in the Bill of Rights that are applicable here:
"Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
"Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
It’s because of how the federal government got its powers, as opposed to how the states got their powers.
The states were sovereign. They could legislate upon any subject under the sun.
They delegated some of their sovereign powers to a national, federal government – but only those powers expressly given to the federal government are the powers it has. So when the federal government makes a new law, they have to be able to say which part of the Constitution gives them the power to legislate in that area. They can’t simply pass a law because it’s a good idea – their laws must relate to, say, the coining of money, or protection of intellectual property, or enforcing a treaty, or regulating interstate commerce.
A state can make a new law in any area it please, because states’ powers aren’t constrained in that way.
But couldn’t almost any crime be considered a violation towards the federal government too adn vice versa? Harming a federal employee, well, he lives in a state, so he harmed a state employee too. And it seems circular to say that it violates a federal law and is a crime because then you could technically just make a federal law that someone is violating, like murder, to take it out of the states’ hands
Any of those things could be, in the sense that I think you mean it. But that isn’t how we do it. Those aren’t the laws we’ve written or the way that we understand them. The way we do it is that in general, criminal law is handled by the states, and the states also gave the federal government some power to enforce its own criminal law.
All criminal law is just things we made up and wrote down, after all. There’s some degree of arbitrariness no matter how you do it. But it’s not random.
“State employee” is not “random employee living in a state”, it’s “Employee of a state agency” in the same way that “Federal Employee” means “Employee of a federal agency”. So no, harming a federal employee is not harming a state employee. (I sincerely doubt anyone could be a full-time one and moonlighting as the other.)
As to who gets jurisdiction, my understanding in circumstances where the exact same crime on the books of two overlapping jurisdiction (federal and state, in this case) are often negotiated among the interested prosecutorial parties.
ETA: Not a lawyer, so the latter statement is based on news and open discussion, not professional expertise. But the first paragraph comes from a high-school understanding of U.S. Civics, and particularly the divisions of power between federal and state governments. Plus common sense.
No you couldn’t. That would be unconstitutional. As has been pointed out, states retain jurisdiction over anything that is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution as being under the jurisdiction of the federal government. So you can only make it a crime if there is some aspect that puts it within the powers of the federal government. Otherwise, it would take a constitutional amendment to make murder in general a federal crime.
As mentioned - the individual states were sovereign entities with full control of their laws. They agreed to the constitution, which basically (broad and vague generalization) allows the federal government control of anything “interstate” or “international”, or messing with the federal government.
Thus the feds can make laws that deal with smuggling, counterfeiting (US currency), crimes that are typically interstate (wire fraud, transport of illegal goods interstate,air traffic and broadcasts, long distance telephone and cable TV), and crimes that mess with the feds (crimes against federal employees, robbing FDIC insured banks). The constitution gave the federal government, for example, control of patents and copyright - so they can make laws where messing with those is a crime. they control the money, so by extension they make laws about selling shares and bonds and some other financial transaction laws.
Not sure the exact basis, but many constitutional amendments say “the government may make laws…” From this, the government can for example make laws whether your constitutional rights are being violated, your right to vote in federal elections, income tax, etc.
So there is no pattern, other than “what does the constitution say?”
The Obamacare bill, for example, the feds argued in court that people needing health care often crossed state lines therefore the feds could legislate a requirement for medicalcare. the court said “no you can’t but you can legislate about raising taxes, and the ‘fine’ is a tax, so OK.”
the feds have also argued that they can regulate interstate commerce, and any home-grown marijuana has a good chance of being sold into interstate smuggling, so therefore it had jurisdiction over local growing too. Many many years ago, the court agreed. The “it’s in some twisted way interstate commerce” clause seems to have pretty much allowed anything until recently.
Sorry, I typed it too fast. What I meant to point out was that its odd that employment source mattered when this guy probably identifies as a citizen of the state more than an employee of the feds. Why doesn’t, for example, citizen of a local jurisdiction take precedent over the employer? Why even take employer into account?
There is one sense in which violating federal law is “more severe”: If it’s a federal law, then the resources of the federal government (the FBI, etc.) can be used for catching you, whereas if it’s a state law, then the federal government can get involved only indirectly. Since the federal government has more resources available to it than the individual states, you’re more likely to be caught if you’re violating federal law.
Two different jurisdictions, two different crimes. There would likely be federal and state charges in that instance (like I believe there were in the Oklahoma City bombing) giving prosecutors more options. Which trial goes first is a matter of discussion and cooperation.
The catch here is that the Federales owns the currency we use, thus any transaction involving the US dollar can be considered interstate commerce. You’ve be surprised at what is considered a transaction involving the US dollar, barter has dollar value, favors have dollar value … hell, even a good reputation has a dollar value.
Oregon’s medical marijuana laws still makes it a felony to transact in pot … one can only grow it in their own home for their own use.
It happened occasionally during the Civil Rights Movement of the 60s, that local (ie, state) law enforcement and prosecution was lax in enforcing crimes against civil rights activists. The federal government would sometimes step in and charge people with federal crimes (for instance, violation of the Civil Rights Act) when the states were reluctant to charge people with murder.
This highlights the situation pretty well. Several of the people so prosecuted were strongly believed to have committed multiple lynchings or incited multiple lynching, among other highly serious crimes. But in the case of their prosecution at all, they would typically have been acquitted of the State crimes. When charged and convicted Federally the crime carried a maximum penalty of ten years, which is what many of these individuals received.
The Federal government was totally powerless to charge them with the murders they were involved in, despite there being a mountain of evidence to prove them guilty. Murder was outside of Federal jurisdiction. Which is why several well known murderers were given sentences of only ten years, as that was all that the law at the Federal level allowed for in the situation.
Maybe what’s confusing about the employee question will be cleared up if I say this:
Not every crime against a federal employee is a federal crime.
If Jim murders Myron, who works for the Department of Agriculture as a crop inspector, because he discovers Myron in bed with Jim’s wife Lola, there is no federal crime.
But if Jim murders Myron in order to prevent Myron’s inspection of Jim’s genetically modified wheat field, it’s a federal crime.
The key is not simply that the crime is against a federal employee – it must be against a federal employee in the course of his employment to trigger federal jurisdiction.