If the U.S. Criminal Code were a cook book, my hams would taste like sock.
October 23, 2005 6:05 AM Subscribe
LawFilter: Why is the U.S. Code so strange?
Why are bribery, graft, and conflicts of interest (Chapter 11) grouped in the same chapter as child support (11A) and chemical weapons (11B)? Why is gambling (50) grouped with genocide (50A)? Why is telemarketing fraud (113A) grouped with terrorism (113B) and torture (113C)? There are other odd examples.
I am wondering what exactly is significant about a new chapter. Is there some historical reason for making the legal code have no coherent structure? Some rule for starting a new chapter? Is it just a joke among politicians?
Why are bribery, graft, and conflicts of interest (Chapter 11) grouped in the same chapter as child support (11A) and chemical weapons (11B)? Why is gambling (50) grouped with genocide (50A)? Why is telemarketing fraud (113A) grouped with terrorism (113B) and torture (113C)? There are other odd examples.
I am wondering what exactly is significant about a new chapter. Is there some historical reason for making the legal code have no coherent structure? Some rule for starting a new chapter? Is it just a joke among politicians?
My personal theory is that in the US, law is conflated with politics. Those that make the law have to do something for their constituency. So they make laws that they can take back to their special interest groups and show them that their interests were pushed.
To paraphrase a famous saying, it is a messy system lacking in elegance and good taste, its just that all other political systems are worse.
posted by forforf at 6:23 AM on October 23, 2005
To paraphrase a famous saying, it is a messy system lacking in elegance and good taste, its just that all other political systems are worse.
posted by forforf at 6:23 AM on October 23, 2005
Best answer: It was obviously created alphabetically; if they added additional sections later on (eg Genocide) and wanted to preserve the alphabetic sorting without re-numbering everything, they would have to add a sub-section. It doesn't mean those sections are related, just that they need to shoehorn something in.
posted by Gortuk at 6:27 AM on October 23, 2005
posted by Gortuk at 6:27 AM on October 23, 2005
Like Gortuk says, you can see that "newer" crimes are in sections with A, B, or C appended, because they couldn't fit them in otherwise:
Chapter 11A. Child Support
Chapter 11B. Chemical Weapons
Chapter 17A. Common Carrier Operation Under The Influence Of Alcohol Or Drugs
Chapter 50A. Genocide
Chapter 109A. Sexual Abuse
Chapter 110A. Domestic Violence And Stalking
Chapter 113A. Telemarketing Fraud
Chapter 113B. Terrorism
Chapter 113C. Torture
posted by smackfu at 6:29 AM on October 23, 2005
Chapter 11A. Child Support
Chapter 11B. Chemical Weapons
Chapter 17A. Common Carrier Operation Under The Influence Of Alcohol Or Drugs
Chapter 50A. Genocide
Chapter 109A. Sexual Abuse
Chapter 110A. Domestic Violence And Stalking
Chapter 113A. Telemarketing Fraud
Chapter 113B. Terrorism
Chapter 113C. Torture
posted by smackfu at 6:29 AM on October 23, 2005
Response by poster: All's good on the alphabetical idea, except that
"Prohibition On Release And Use Of Certain Personal Information From State Motor Vehicle Records"
seems like it should be Chapter 89A. By the way, Chapter 89 is hilarious. I highly recommend reading it.
In any case, I feel very dumb for not even noticing the alphabetical sorting. Funny how that happens. You get so confused by something you don't notice the obvious answer.
posted by dsword at 6:36 AM on October 23, 2005
"Prohibition On Release And Use Of Certain Personal Information From State Motor Vehicle Records"
seems like it should be Chapter 89A. By the way, Chapter 89 is hilarious. I highly recommend reading it.
In any case, I feel very dumb for not even noticing the alphabetical sorting. Funny how that happens. You get so confused by something you don't notice the obvious answer.
posted by dsword at 6:36 AM on October 23, 2005
dsword is linking only to Title 18, which covers federal criminal law (except for drug crimes, which are in Title 21, but I digress.) The full list is here.
alexst is right, the chapters within Title 18 are roughly in alphabetical order with the newest ones tacked on at the end. The titles in the US Code, starting with Title 7, are also in alphabetical order. Location within the US Code is legally meaningless; only the Congressional enactment creating the law (and any subsequent laws amending or repealing that law) matter.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 6:36 AM on October 23, 2005
alexst is right, the chapters within Title 18 are roughly in alphabetical order with the newest ones tacked on at the end. The titles in the US Code, starting with Title 7, are also in alphabetical order. Location within the US Code is legally meaningless; only the Congressional enactment creating the law (and any subsequent laws amending or repealing that law) matter.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 6:36 AM on October 23, 2005
Fair enough. That would be why google drew a blank.
posted by matthewr at 8:38 AM on October 23, 2005
posted by matthewr at 8:38 AM on October 23, 2005
yes, we'd all better read chapter 89 ... ignorance of the law is NO EXCUSE!!
posted by pyramid termite at 10:10 AM on October 23, 2005
posted by pyramid termite at 10:10 AM on October 23, 2005
Tagging on:
Is anyone else suprised at the use of the term Indians? I know the US Code has deep roots, but I had imagined they would use "Native American" by now. There might be a reasonable explanation for this, I'm clueless when it comes to US legislation (history).
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 3:51 PM on October 23, 2005
Is anyone else suprised at the use of the term Indians? I know the US Code has deep roots, but I had imagined they would use "Native American" by now. There might be a reasonable explanation for this, I'm clueless when it comes to US legislation (history).
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 3:51 PM on October 23, 2005
Native Americans have been known as "Indians" for some 400 years now. The term "Native American" has been widely used for no more than three decades. One thing that the U.S. Congress does not do is go through previously passed statutes to make them politically correct.
Hell, the State of Alabama cannot even find the political will to amend its constitution to remove the requirements for segregated education (section 256) and the male-only franchise (section 177). It did, though, repeal the section prohibiting miscegenation in 2000. Source: Wikipedia entry: Alabama Constitution
posted by megatherium at 4:22 PM on October 23, 2005 [1 favorite]
Hell, the State of Alabama cannot even find the political will to amend its constitution to remove the requirements for segregated education (section 256) and the male-only franchise (section 177). It did, though, repeal the section prohibiting miscegenation in 2000. Source: Wikipedia entry: Alabama Constitution
posted by megatherium at 4:22 PM on October 23, 2005 [1 favorite]
Yeah, it's best to think of the US Code as a kind of index to the entire 200+ year history of legislation, showing only the latest revision -- a bit like a Wikipedia article. Acts of Congress often just change one or two words in a law.
goodnews: a plurality of American Indians preferred the term "American Indians" in a 1996 survey. See Native American name controversy at Wikipedia and American Indian vs. Native American. In descending order, the preference is to a) treat a person as an individual without reference to ancestry; b) treat a person as a member of a specific tribe, e.g. Cherokee; c) treat a person as part of the demographic category "American Indian".
Also, there is a long history of Congress changing the powers, responsibilities, budget, etc. of the Bureau of Indian Affairs seemingly at random, with little thought to the needs of the actual Indians. Any move to change the name would be met with extreme skepticism.
posted by dhartung at 7:14 PM on October 23, 2005
goodnews: a plurality of American Indians preferred the term "American Indians" in a 1996 survey. See Native American name controversy at Wikipedia and American Indian vs. Native American. In descending order, the preference is to a) treat a person as an individual without reference to ancestry; b) treat a person as a member of a specific tribe, e.g. Cherokee; c) treat a person as part of the demographic category "American Indian".
Also, there is a long history of Congress changing the powers, responsibilities, budget, etc. of the Bureau of Indian Affairs seemingly at random, with little thought to the needs of the actual Indians. Any move to change the name would be met with extreme skepticism.
posted by dhartung at 7:14 PM on October 23, 2005
And note that it's still called the Bureau of Indian Affairs. If anyone cared, that name would probably be changed first since that's the particular part of the government that many deal with the most.
posted by smackfu at 7:29 PM on October 23, 2005
posted by smackfu at 7:29 PM on October 23, 2005
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by alexst at 6:08 AM on October 23, 2005