theReformed

I've become concerned with the ever increasing results of unintentional criminals being created by laws in the United States through no direct or intended fault of their own. Laws are meant to govern specific processes and act as guidance to maintain a functional society. They also provide a reference for penalties of violations in law and as such we're expected to abide accordingly. So what happens when the legislation becomes far too generalized in it's verbose definitions?

(note: Please consider that I am not an attorney or paralegal and my perspective is based off the understanding of the US Code through review of legislation, case studies and general commentary - if you are a legal professional, please feel free to post your perspective on this entry in the Comments below as I would be intrigued to know your opinions on this)

Let's refine this situation a little: Simple people can easily become simple felons. Searching through the web on some wire fraud information, I eventually landed on Cornell University's Law School website where I came across this entry in the United States Code:

TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 63, § 1343 - Fraud by wire, radio, or television

Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

(source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001343—-000-.html)

"Ok fella, so what does this mean for me?", you're probably asking yourself as a US citizen or just an interested party. Glad you asked! Taken in context, this one entry applies directly to your everyday life. ANY communications of committment relayed by telephone, e-mail, radio, television or any other form of electronic broadcast that is produced through a physical medium identified in title is considered binding.

Example, say I owe my friend $20.00US he lent me for a purchase. My original intent is to pay him back. In person, I would relay that to him and with his acceptance of those terms the agreement would be finalized, maybe with a hand shake or just a verbal confirmation. I then  become incapable of follow through immediately or which we somehow reached an empass where the agreement is in question - on my defaulted/delayed payment the ramifications are very minimal other than harming the friend's perspective of my character and weakening the weight my 'word' carried with him or others.

Under normal circumstances, this is generally enforceable only as a 'gentleman's agreement' (reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentlemen's_agreement), or a mutually agreed on set of terms between two cooperating parties -  although it should be noted that in some states such as Texas, verbal agreements are admissable in court as legally binding. The point of the gentleman's agreement is convenient, mutual, social-based committments to eachother, an act that we might commit on a daily basis - the underlying theme is honor.

However, when you include transmission of that agreement over wire, radio or television (although I am not sure why you would do the latter) (i.e. If I called him and let him know, "hey buddy, I am going to pay you back this week") and then I fail to follow through on my committment in the timeframe I've set, by the letter of the law I have just committed a felonious act which is punishable by up 20 years in prison, regardless of the intent.

Outside of the technology used to relay this, it also boils down to the definition of fraud which can vary by different states. "I'm not a defrauding anyone though, it just didn't happen as I expected!". Unfortunately, that isn't accurate. Although fraud is generally defined as an act of deception or an attempt of hoax, it can also be defined as failure to act or effect the provisions of a committment or contract between parties.

Because of these reasons, I would have unintentionally committed fraud through a device such as a cellphone perhaps and be subject to severe penalty in the court of law, because I didn't pay my friend back his $20.00Us according to the timeframe or terms agreed upon.

I'll acknowledge that it would be an extreme case to take to court for damages of non-payment for $20.00US, however, it provides sufficient example of how the current legislation doesn't make a proper determination or distinction between the circumstance and intent of the parties involved and the role of a medium and the usage thereof which they've communicated that through - a law meant to punish severe, criminal violators on a federal level now can be misused to harass normally law abiding citizens.

Wrapping up, just one more reason to be careful about what you say on the Internet, telephone or radio in this day and age. Because a committment you relay today, could come back to haunt you tommorrow. If you're going to give your word, stand by it.