my pp is in federal corr inst. and i was wondering what is breaking a federal law? i know it a stuoid question to asked but i was just wondering.

That's rather difficult to define. There are numerous laws that fall under Federal (U.S.) jurisdiction. Violation of any one of them would be "breaking" a federal law.

Some that come to mind immediately are counterfeiting, threatening the life of the president, smuggling. Probably interstate transportation of stolen goods.
I'm not in law enforcement, but I'm sure that there are many more.

American law can be very confusing for those of us functioning under British Common Law.

For example...in Canada we have one Criminal Code that covers the whole country. There is one set of laws that are the same in every province and people are charged for a crime under that one set of laws.

In the US...as I understand it...there can be two laws in the same place covering the same crime. It depends upon who does the arresting and charging. At the same time Dave is correct when he pints out that there are laws that are Federal only and, again as I understand it, deal a lot with crimes that are committed in more than one state, things like hijacking, crimes against the federal government and that kind of thing.

In Ireland, Northern Island, Canada, and the other colonies all criminal code crimes are committed against the Crown.

Confused....me too!

Tom

There are more than 200 various 'federal crimes' that fall under jurisdiction of mostly the F.B.I. (some fall under the Department of Justice by virtue of either the Treasury Department, the U.S. Attorney General, the Secret Service, the C.I.A., the D.E.A. or (now) Homeland Security Agency).

Examples (as I can't list all 200 here) would be Treason, Terrorism, Public Corruption, Organized Crime, Bankruptcy Fraud, Drug Trafficking, Money Laundering, Securities Fraud, Bank Fraud, etc.

Simply put (or maybe NOT so simply put), most States have laws that prohibit many of those offenses as well, but when the offense involves "interstate" activity (crossing State lines) or involves a U.S. Government controlled entity (i.e., Banks, Federal Courts, Public Office, etc.) the U.S. Government would likely prosecute.

The interesting thing is that the State can prosecute when it involves a federal crime covered by State law, whether the Feds elect to prosecute or not. The Feds can choose to prosecute when the Federal law applies AND the State law applies, even if the State has decided NOT to prosecute. The Feds WILL prosecute when no State law is applicable and the offense falls under Federal law only. Futhermore, BOTH the State and the Feds can prosecute when the offense involves both State and Federal law.

There will be a quiz next week. I hope you studied that.

...hold it Dog...ahhh...are you saying that Federal laws can take control of State laws...so State laws that fall under the jurisdiction of Federal laws even if the crime was committed in a State jurisidiction under Federal control, (are you saying), that they (Federal Agencies) can decide to take the responsibility of the crime because it falls under Federal law guidelines, or because it falls under the guidelines of State laws giving the authority to Federal laws and guidelines...never mind...I am thoroughly confused...do these laws make any sense to the common folk...? Iyiyieee...gd4or

I have heard that before and it really surprises me. I don't understand why that doesn't fall under double jeopardy. I mean, there are sentencing guidelines and that is like being punished twice!

LeeCe...it really is that bad, or really hard to understand...it often times is made to look real confusing for most people...Part of their madness...no dear...there is no "double jeopardy", there...our Constitution is very clean on that matter...gd4or

GD....yes and no. Federal laws don't take "control" over State laws, nor do they take "precedence" over them. If there is a State law available to prosecute, the Feds can choose to apply Federal law or not.

Since the Constitution set States (Commonwealths) up to be autonomous, the State can govern its citizens under their laws, just as the Federal government can govern them under the laws that apply to ALL citizens of the U.S.

The Feds can take jurisdiction over the offense in many cases, whether the State elects to prosecute or not. This is done mostly in drug trafficking cases, and sometimes the State won't prosecute if the Feds pick it up. In drug trafficking, however, the States generally try to stay in the "running" especially if there is property or money to be seized under condemnation laws. Then, they get a piece of the "pie" just as the Feds do.

I worked in this arena for 24 years and much of it STILL takes a bit of digesting even for me. Law is complicated; always has been; always will be.