Reddit reviews Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent

On the macro-scale, end the "drug war". Massive decriminalization of all sorts. Our legal code is a massively overgrown nest of bullshit that criminalizes every single person in the country not currently in a coma. For a rundown of the more egregious corners of this, read "Three Felonies a Day".

​

On the technical side, a massive increase in the number of police officers, judges and public defenders. Reduction or removal of immunity for prosecutors and police officers. Reduction or elimination of most fines, and channel the money from fines to the public defender's office.

​

Ban plea deals outright. Disincentivize prosecutorial overcharging.

​

If I really want to get into the weeds, I recommend public shaming/corporal punishment as a substitute for minor jail sentences and fines. I believe it would be more of a disincentive and more humane to the criminal at the same time.

​

The ideal system I would like to see would have massively frontloaded resources. Actual crimes (as opposed to silly bullshit) would be investigated with the zeal and manpower of a federal task force. I'd want to see clearance rates in excess of 90% across the board. I care a lot less about the punishment than I do about finding and convicting the maximum number of criminals. In the short run (say, the first ten years), this would massively increase the prison population, but over time it would shrink it. Something I recall from a criminology class was that the harshness of punishment had little correlation with deterrence effects, but the likelihood of apprehension was strongly correlated.

Exactly! There is even a [book about this called three felonies a day] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00505UZ4G/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?ie=UTF8&btkr=1)

This is the problem with the constant surveillance that the NSA and increasing police do. You are always breaking a law and all it takes is someone who had perfect information about you to look back into your NSA or even [police records] (http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/07/17/license-plate-scanners-aclu-privacy/2524939/) to find when and how then charge you with something.

Take a farmer, any farmer in the U.S. He likely has guns in his house. He also has access to truckloads of high explosive, also know as ammonium nitrate or fertilizer. So his kid is going off to college and he rents a UHaul truck. So is this now a farmer who's kid is going off to school or a crazy Oklahoma city bomber type loading a Uhaul with explosives? Sure is hard to tell the difference and its easy to spin a story for a jury. Just hope you dont piss off the wrong person or lead the wrong protest.

You could probably find a lot of "criminals" to empathize with. The problem is that it is simply too easy to labeled a criminal by the state. There is a book out there called Three Felonies A Day that is a pretty good read.

Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00505UZ4G/ref=nosim/0sil8

It might not be a given, but it is reasonably close.

Unfortunately, nowadays many crimes on the books are vaguely defined and selectively enforced. That was the point of "Three Felonies A Day". Article. Link to Amazon.com.

With nearly everyone guilty of something, it becomes a simple matter to label one's opponents as "criminals", while coming up with various reasons to delay, ignore, or forget the potential crimes of one's allies.

Every citizen is estimated to commit Three Felonies a Day. If you don't think you're breaking the law, it's because you're ignorant of the law.

You've broken the law, probably dozens if not hundreds of times. Every time you sped of the highway, or crossed against the light, or entered a "01/01/1950" as your birthday on an Internet age gate, or streamed a basketball game. In fact, one author argues that the average American probably commits three felonies a day.

Are you a terrible person? Would you think it's a little overboard for a SWAT team to bust down your door and lock you in prison?

There's a concept in the law, called "malum in se" and "malum prohibitum." It refers to the difference between things that are illegal because we say they're illegal, and things that are illegal because they're inherently wrong. Murder, theft, assault -- these are things that are inherently wrong. But things like driving on the left side of the road, or getting paid to cut hair without a barbers' license -- they're not inherently wrong, but are made illegal (with good reason) as a matter of public order.

There's nothing inherently wrong with wanting to come to the United States to make a better life. Pretty much all of your ancestors did the exact same thing, and it's likely that you celebrate them for it.

So, think of something like online piracy. A lot of people have pirated copyrighted materials, which can be a felony. Yet I bet you don't dismiss everyone who illegally streamed a movie as a felon and demand that they be rounded up and thrown in prison. You'd probably support a system in which people who pirated are given amnesty, DRM systems become widespread, but the industry puts media into a format in which it can be accessed easily for reasonable payment. That's what people want to do with immigration -- don't brutally rip people from their homes, but develop a system by which people who are otherwise good Americans can be brought into compliance with the law.

Three Felonies a Day

> The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how federal criminal laws have become dangerously disconnected from the English common law

Excessive punishments don't help anyone. They don't serve as good deterrents, they cost more money to implement (such as a longer jail term) and they hurt people worse without any actual benefit.

Why spend more money without any benefit? The best way to reduce crime is to invest in prevention and catching people. Increasing the likelihood that people are caught IS a good deterrent. Increasing the punishment to something excessive to compensate for your lack of ability to deter people is simply unfair to everyone. Some people don't get punished. Other people get punished way too much. And we have studies that show that people just don't respond very much to increasing the severity, which is probably especially true among younger kids who picture themselves invincible.

And that is before you start talking about how excessive punishment allow for selective punishments and make the effects of selective punishment much worse. For example, white people and black people are about equally likely to smoke pot, but black people are way more likely to get caught and punished.

And your idea that we can just avoid committing crimes is wrong too. The book three felonies a day talks about how many federal laws are so loosely worded that they can catch pretty much anyone in about 3 different felonies a day.

EDIT: Have you never even gone 1 mph above the speed limit? Or missed a road sign? How would you feel about going to jail for 10 years for that infraction?

> So you didn't read it. Then don't comment on it.

I read it, which is how I know it doesn't say really say anything.

> Copyright violation is both civil and criminal.

Copyright violation is only criminal if you directly profit from unauthorized selling, so your example is not a criminal example.

>Laws are very simple, even in total they are quite simple.

Then how come law is a 3 year doctoral level degree and U.S. tax law alone is so complicated that the IRS help line gets a significant chunk of tax questions wrong? The U.S. tax code, printed on paper, could fill a decent sized library. The municipal code of New York city is regularly trotted out on Stossel's show, on paper, in small print, and it's still several feet high.

> The difficulty in law is how laws interact, which laws become more important when they clash, what an appropriate punishment, and most importantly, is there sufficient evidence to prove that the accused actually did X and so on and so on. If act X is criminal or not, is basically always very clear cut.

Wrong. If laws were so clear cut, then court rulings would be unimportant and any idiot could be a judge. Some laws are so vague that it takes thousands of government bureaucrats years to figure out what they mean and write tens of thousands of pages of regulations to delineate the disparate statutes into coherent regulations. The ACA, long and awful as it was, spawned regulations orders of magnitude longer and more awful to implement it.

>And the important part of the quote, is that it highlights that everyone has committed a crime.

And that's the problem.

>Not because they didn't realize it was a crime, but because they simply did not care because they don't think they'll get caught.

Really? Then I'm sure you have the entire federal register of laws, the state register of laws for your state, and the local municipal and county codes memorized to a T. You probably know the exact dimensions and measurements required of the grate that has to go over your firing barrel if you burn trash on your own property. I'm sure you also know how many inches of easement you have to give your neighbors in not planting trees. You probably also know the exact translucency rating of tinting allowed on windows and exactly how many inches of tinting are allowed on your windshield before you can be arrested in your state.

>Do you think people driving too fast are actually unaware that driving too fast is illegal as an example?

That depends. Are they driving on a marked road or do they know the prevailing speed limit of the town on unmarked streets? Do they know the local ordinances adjusting speed limits away from the marked speed depending on road conditions? Do they know what vehicle they are classed as and how that might effect the adjustment to the allowed top speed? Are there any emergency vehicles in the area? How close is the nearest school? Is any building within sight classified as a child care facility?

>Ofc they know, they just think they'll get away with it, and proportionality principle means that they usually will, because it's unproportional to install speed monitoring devices in all cars as an example.

So basically, you think that the quote means that everybody knowingly commits crimes, but that they think they'll get away with it because so few people are caught. Behold:

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent-ebook/dp/B00505UZ4G/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1474607218&sr=1-1&keywords=three+felonies+a+day

From the blurb:

>The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day.

Said book is Written by:

>Harvey A. Silverglate

Who graduated from Harvard Law School.

The law is not simple, and unless you're sitting on a law degree, 45 years of experience in the law profession, and a legal foundation (FIRE), I think I'm going to take this guy's opinion about it over yours.

Edit: Clarified that I meant the guy who wrote the book, not the guy who wrote the forward that's quoting what the gist of the book is, because the guy I'm debating is a case study in argumentum ad ignoratio elenchi.

> If every law on the books were perfectly enforced, almost everyone would be in jail.

Agreed, but this is, in my view, a problem with the law, not responsibility. We have far too many stupid laws in existence, and not enough mechanisms to eliminate them. Harvey Silverglate has an excellent book on this topic from a business standpoint, and Matt Taibbi has another fantastic one demonstrating it from a criminal vs. white collar crime perspective. I'm personally a huge critic of American copyright law, which makes most normal internet behavior illegal in some way.

>I would love it if everyone played by the rules and the rules were relaxed a bit from what they currently are and we held people responsible.

I wasn't just talking about responsibility when it comes to the law, I was talking about responsibility in a general sense. Changing your oil is a responsibility, but there's no law requiring it nor forbidding it (yet, I guess...sigh). Women should be held to the same legal standards as men, but they should also be held to the same general responsibility as men. Even if the behavior isn't illegal, if a man and women are drunk and have sex, it's usually assumed that the man was responsible for the behavior.

>Ultimately I agree with you, everyone should be responsible. Do you think that is possible with the current laws on the books? Practical?

No, but that's because we aren't holding politicians accountable. The U.S. Congress has been absolutely negligent in their duties for the past hundred years, ceding almost all of their power to the executive and judicial branch. Many of the laws you are talking about were never passed by an elected representative; they are policies of appointed bureaucrats in agencies Congress created so they wouldn't have to bother doing their job.

I'm not really arguing that people should be responsible, I'm arguing they are responsible, whether they admit it or not. Neglecting to take action is a failure of responsibility. So while I'd love to cut about 90% of federal laws and virtually all executive departments, I don't think it's an issue that's going to be addressed until people start thinking of responsibility as something they have rather than something other people will take care of for them.

You'll want to read the book then. Or don't, because it's pretty boring. Just take our word for it. Or ask the WSJ for examples.

It’s not all we have right now. It’s what’s in power right now and we can change that. We have the resources to do that.

And here’s one article from a while ago stating that


https://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-you-commit-three-felonies-a-day-2009-9

Also a good book:

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent-ebook/dp/B00505UZ4G/ref=sr_1_1_nodl?ie=UTF8&keywords=three+felonies+a+day&qid=1415141894&sr=8-1

Check out https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00505UZ4G/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

Tl;dr the average American commits three felonies per day. Anyone in the US can be imprisoned at any time.

The citation is Harvey Silverglate - a Harvard Law professor who published a book about it in 2011.

In general - the book was more about how mundane things we do everyday could be interpreted as a crime.

Here are a few examples:


https://mic.com/articles/86797/8-ways-we-regularly-commit-felonies-without-realizing-it#.rFrGFdLSt

Then why was Aaron Shwartz prosecuted over 'unauthorized use' of MIT computers? Anyway that is one example, as I said. It'd probably help to read the article I linked.

How about piracy? Another example. Drug use?

Maybe read some of these comments

Read the book Amazon: Three Felonies a Day. Basically, it is impossible for any normal American to get through a single day without committing multiple felonies. The progressive discounting of mens rea by the state means that your intent or even awareness no longer matters.

http://www.cnet.com/news/report-microsoft-says-open-source-violates-235-patents/

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00505UZ4G/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?ie=UTF8&btkr=1

These terms are not new. Yes, these terms can be applied to deck trackers. Yes, under these terms Blizzard could ban you for using a deck tracker the same as they always could. No, informal statements from Blizzard employees don't provide any kind of defense should Blizzard decide to ban people for using deck trackers.

Blizzard probably won't ban players en masse for using deck trackers, but it is very handy for them to have bannable offenses be common-place; Any time they want to ban someone for whatever reason they can just ban them for common-place ToS violations. It's like Three Felonies A Day: there are so many federal laws that everyone is routinely and unknowingly breaking them, so any time the feds want to target someone they can always find an excuse.

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent-ebook/dp/B00505UZ4G

> TL;DR: Stick to 2D, and you won't have any legal issues. In the absolute worst case you'll be hit with an obscenity charge, but even if you are, you can contact the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund and they will defend you for free.

This isn't a very sane analysis of those cases. Nothing you've posted doesn't prove it's not illegal. It clearly is and has survived scrutiny) under several cases. It's just that, similar to piracy and myriad other stupid laws, you are very unlikely to be prosecuted unless you are already being targeted. The same way you aren't going to get a ticket for not wearing a seat belt unless you are caught doing something else too.

However, and this is the important part, companies and very public entities don't have the luxury of fading into obscurity the way citizens do, and they already have leverage on them in the form of business licences. If they're big enough they might be able to bribe themselves out of it but they can't exactly afford a public media blitz that they distribute child pornography. That's why you are going to see this stuff being banned on platforms and censored by translation companies, because even if it's likely that the private citizen isn't going to get nabbed for this sort of thing that's not a risk anyone is willing to take with their company and investor's money.

*Also you are sorely misrepresenting the ruling in the Christopher Hadley Case. What happened in that case was the court re-affirmed that Hadley could be charged under the PROTECT Act of 2003 as long as the material was deemed obscene. That's why he plea bargained after that determination, because he knew full well his material would be deemed obscene and he'd be convicted anyway. Here's a quote from the case that makes it very clear. It's not a separate obscenity charge. It's another provision under the same law which has the same penalty, and you still get put on the sex offender registry as well.

>This conclusion has minimal impact on this case given the almost complete redundancy of the conduct criminalized by subsections 1466A(a)(1) and (b)(1) with that of subsections 1466A(a)(2) and (b)(2). The observable differences between these subsections are (1) subsections 1466A(a)(1) and (b)(1) incorporate the Miller test as essential elements, whereas subsections 1466A(a)(2) and (b)(2) do not; (2) subsections 1466A(a)(2) and (b)(2) include the “appears to be” language in relation to “a minor;” and (3) subsections 1466A(a)(1) and (b)(1) encompass a broader list of sexually explicit conduct.
>
...
>
>The indictment in this case simply charges Defendant with violations of subsections 1466A(a) and (b). There is no reference to whether Defendant is being charged under subsections 1466A(a)(1) or (a)(2), or (b)(1) or (b)(2). The conduct outlined in count one states sufficient facts to allege a violation of § 1466A(a)(1), and the conduct outlined in counts two through four state sufficient facts to allege violations of § 1466A(b)(1). Because subsections 1466A(a)(1) and (b)(1) incorporate the three-prong Miller test for obscenity, these portions of the statute are not overbroad in violation of the Due Process Clause. The conduct alleged in the superseding indictment delineates violations of those constitutional portions of the statute; therefore, Defendant’s argument that the entire superseding indictment must be dismissed based on overbreadth must fail.

It also follows in line with the Whorley case's finding.

>But in making his argument, Whorley ignores the language of § 1466A(a)(1), which prohibits visual depictions of minors only when they are obscene. See 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(a)(1)(B). Ashcroft itself noted that obscenity in any form is not protected by the First Amendment. See Ashcroft, 535 U.S. at 245- 46; see also Miller, 413 U.S. at 24; Kaplan, 413 U.S. at 119. Thus, regardless of whether § 1466A(a)(1) requires an actual minor, it is nonetheless a valid restriction on obscene speech under Miller, not a restriction on non-obscene pornography of the type permitted by Ferber. We thus find Whorley’s as applied constitutional challenge to § 1466A(a)(1) to be without merit.

Apparently OP spends too much time calling people "cucks" and reading Trump memes and he hasn't had time to sit down with Three Felonies A Day.

>Oh yes, I'm sure the RT article is credible, the others make no such claims.

Uhm, yes they do, and the last is a video recording of the statement by an NSA official to Congress which the other articles are referring to. Now you are either illiterate or a liar.

>According to facebook, what?

That most people online are separated by about 4.7 degrees of separation. It is a logical extension that if the NSA uses 3, that this would include most of the Internet.

>Where did you find this claim?

There are many books written on the subject, and many examples in the mainstream media.

>Anyone entity that breaks the law should be punished, period

https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00505UZ4G/ref=nosim/0sil8 please read this

Yes, we need more nanny state rules for the paranoid. You can never be to sure of what to fear! Did you hear about the paranoid legislature in Michigan that passes a law of computer access that was so restrictive a crazy police chief charged a wifi user with a felony for not buying a coffee first?

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2007/05/michigan-man-arrested-for-using-cafes-free-wifi-from-his-car/

It really has become the book 1984;

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent-ebook/dp/B00505UZ4G

Doesnt that indicate we may have a problem with our legal system?

Theres a reason books like Three Felonies A Day exists.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00505UZ4G/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 doubtful

using something "society" wants as enough impetuous to force everyone to pay for it is dangerous.

For example, the USA seems to be at war all over the world, for very bad reasons.

I wish I could opt out of paying for the military. If the government had no funds to make payroll, we'd make very different foreign policy decisions, very quickly.

Re: the justice system - it DOES serve those with money already. Just instead of paying for the courts directly, people with money pay a lawyer who can usually get them a tolerable outcome.

If you don't have money (and sometimes if you do) you still get ground under the heavy hand of "justice".

Very, very little criminal justice activity is regular small-crimes prosecution (like robbery). It's not lucrative enough to justify the police spending their time on it.

I recommend Three Felonies A Day for a better dig into courts.

Another good read is Rise of the Warrior Cop.

Also, full disclosure, the way the courts should function is great! I love what their goal is. But the way they do function is often such a gross perversion of justice it makes me think that a private courts system would do it better, if no other reason then it couldn't be so over-the-top predatory.

If you want an even stranger read, check out Market for Liberty. The authors sketch out what a private courts and police system might look like.

Go read this book, and see if you still feel the same way: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00505UZ4G?btkr=1

Consider it affirmed. (Warning: do not read Silverglate's book if you have high blood pressure.)

I do not want a fully autonomous car. I want to own my car. I want to be 100% in control of where my car goes (and by extension, where I go) at all times. I do not want to put my destination in the hands of google and/or whomever else may be watching.

The argument for them, of course, is 'safety'. If just 11% of cars were autonomous, driving would be much safer! It's safer for everyone if we take away your control of the steering wheel! It's the same argument that gave us the TSA, that compels us to give up Facebook & phone passwords at the border, that the US, Australia, and the UK are using to curtail encryption. Sometimes 'more safety' is not really a good thing.

Every single one of us is a criminal in the eyes of the law. (This particular author asserts that we commit, on average, 3 felonies per day.) Have you exceeded the speed limit? Criminal. Accidentally blown through a red light or rolled a little too quickly through a stop sign because you were distracted? Criminal. Yeah but driverless cars will prevent that! you say. OK, have you ever picked up a feather off the sidewalk? You may be a felon if it came from the wrong kind of bird, whether you know it or not. Did you buy orchids off the internet? You're probably a smuggler.

Hell, nobody even knows for sure how many laws exist, let alone how many of them you may have violated. There's a high probability that you are breaking some law right now while you're reading this.

Once the initial suspicion about driverless cars passes, governments will start looking for the ability to track exactly who is in them, and exactly where. Governments will start pressing companies for an override to command the car to lock it's passengers in and deliver them to a destination against their will (ie - a police station). They will try to sell you on this being a good idea because 'safety'. It is not a good idea because they've made every single one of us criminals, and most of us don't even know it.

I will happily shift my own gears and hope that I die before they make "driving your own car on a public road" illegal.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00505UZ4G/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?ie=UTF8&btkr=1

This is gonna turn into another we gotcha cases. He isn't charged with campaign finance law violations or any political corruption. He probably made a mistake on some form and the government is charging him with a violation of the law. There is an excellent book on how the federal government can investigate anyone to find some obscure law the person violated. http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent-ebook/dp/B00505UZ4G/ref=sr_1_1

Uh, sure. Everyone who believes that, stand on your head.

Hint: Be scared

> I read it, which is how I know it doesn't say really say anything.

And yet you repeat what I said, as if it was new... You obviously did not actually read it. You might have skimmed it, but you certainly did not read it.

> Copyright violation is only criminal if you directly profit from unauthorized selling, so your example is not a criminal example.

No... Just... no... Tell that to the guy jailed for almost 90 months for it... Without having sold a single copy. That's simply not how it works. It's a crime even if you do not profit and even if you do not sell anything. It's simply not investigated because of proportionality. It takes too much resources to investigate for a very minor crime. Just as if you have your bike stolen, that also isn't investigated, but if 50 bikes are stolen in the same area, it is.

> Then how come law is a 3 year doctoral level degree and U.S. tax law alone is so complicated that the IRS help line gets a significant chunk of tax questions wrong? The U.S. tax code, printed on paper, could fill a decent sized library. The municipal code of New York city is regularly trotted out on Stossel's show, on paper, in small print, and it's still several feet high.

I love how you ask a question, that is answered by the sentence directly following your quote... It's so cute.

> Wrong. If laws were so clear cut, then court rulings would be unimportant and any idiot could be a judge. Some laws are so vague that it takes thousands of government bureaucrats years to figure out what they mean and write tens of thousands of pages of regulations to delineate the disparate statutes into coherent regulations. The ACA, long and awful as it was, spawned regulations orders of magnitude longer and more awful to implement it.

How is it that you quote a paragraph, but don't actually read it? I explain it extensively exactly why we have courts and court rulings and why the training and so on. Courts don't rule on if rape is criminal or not. The law is clear that rape is criminal, period. What IS looked at in a court, is if it's proven that the accused actually did that act, and if so, what is the appropriate correction of that behavior.

> And that's the problem.

It's actually not, due to the proportionality principle, which I explained extensively in the first comment which you claim to have read.

> Really? Then I'm sure you have the entire federal register of laws, the state register of laws for your state, and the local municipal and county codes memorized to a T. You probably know the exact dimensions and measurements required of the grate that has to go over your firing barrel if you burn trash on your own property. I'm sure you also know how many inches of easement you have to give your neighbors in not planting trees. You probably also know the exact translucency rating of tinting allowed on windows and exactly how many inches of tinting are allowed on your windshield before you can be arrested in your state.

If I burn trash on my property, then yes I will look up the relevant laws and statutes for doing so. Ignorance of the law, is not a defense. Just as the maximum allowed tinting allowed is something I learned when I took my drivers lessons. You don't have to know all laws at all times. You just need to know all RELEVANT laws to whatever you're doing, and those laws, normal people LOOK UP when they do things if they don't already know them.

> That depends. Are they driving on a marked road or do they know the prevailing speed limit of the town on unmarked streets? Do they know the local ordinances adjusting speed limits away from the marked speed depending on road conditions? Do they know what vehicle they are classed as and how that might effect the adjustment to the allowed top speed? Are there any emergency vehicles in the area? How close is the nearest school? Is any building within sight classified as a child care facility?

Even if the road is unmarked, you are required to know the speed limit of the road since the speed limit is dictated by the area. They are not completely arbitrary. As are you required to know the class of your vehicle in order to drive it, and yes, normal people do know if they're driving a car or a truck. Don't be daft...

> So basically, you think that the quote means that everybody knowingly commits crimes, but that they think they'll get away with it because so few people are caught. Behold:

No. That's not what I said. The quote is relevant because of that, but that's not the same as it meaning that.

> Behold:
https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent-ebook/dp/B00505UZ4G/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1474607218&sr=1-1&keywords=three+felonies+a+day

> From the blurb:
The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day.

> Written by:
Harvey A. Silverglate

Yea you need better reading skills. That blurb, is from the foreword, written by Alan M. Dershowitz. Don't get me wrong here, he's also a Harvard law graduate, but you're obviously not very good at reading what you quote.

That text, is also not contradictory to what I said. First of all, that people knowingly commit crimes, does not preclude that we also unknowingly might commit even more. Secondly, If you actually read the text, you'll quickly see that this is about prosecution, not convictions. That you've done acts that prosecutors will try to bully a confession from you for having done, is completely different from you actually having committed any crimes and this is further explained VERY extensively in that book (you might want to actually read it some time. It's quite interesting if you're interested in law).