How many times do we have to see prosecutors using laws in ways never intended when passed before we stop passing these broad laws?
After Enron anyone fighting against Sarbanes-Oxley passage was laughed at for claiming it was over-broad. No prosecutor would misuse it, of course it's just meant to reign in other evil doers like Enron.
Why is it that anyone even considers the idea that we can rely on proprietorial discretion to keep laws in check? Shouldn't that concept be laughable by now?
At some point this is all judgement calls -- by police, by prosecutors, and by lawmakers. You can't run a complex society on a series of bright-line rules. If you don't like the judgement calls that inevitably must be made, you should pay more attention to the selection of prosecutors (local DAs are often elected; federal DAs are appointed) and those who set the agenda for policing.
After Enron anyone fighting against Sarbanes-Oxley passage was laughed at for claiming it was over-broad. No prosecutor would misuse it, of course it's just meant to reign in other evil doers like Enron.
Why is it that anyone even considers the idea that we can rely on proprietorial discretion to keep laws in check? Shouldn't that concept be laughable by now?