she's being honoured by the postal stamp. in 1968 she became the first black woman elected to congress. thank you for watching. i'm morgan radford. the "the stream" is coming up next. >> hi, i'm lisa fletcher and you're in "the stream." ever send an annoying email, forget to return a library book - you have committed a crime. are these rules going too far? >> digital producer is with us, bringing in all of your live

feedback during the show. you have two important issues. one, this zint number of laws that are on the books. good or bad. and secondly the overcriminalisation of minor infractions. >> people don't know and our community responded and we asked the question. it's summarised here. i had to say that like that. he had no idea that there were so many lawyers. talking about the effects: he talks about criminalisation, and: >> the cost is another theme, the human and financial cost of the legislation. >> are you surprised at how easy it is to break the law and not know it? >> i'm not surprised. the

public and politicians are going tough. a lot of the laws, there's vague and overbroad. ignorance of the law is not a defense, and i can see that playing out. >> talk about intense. would you know if you broke the law, probably not. there's a list of laws and regulations that the government agency has a hard time monitoring. >> there are at least an estimated 4500 criminal statutes on the books today, up from 165 in 1900. but as many as 300,000 criminally enforceable regulations. >> officials say over the last 50 years there has been a shift in rule-making power. in 2012 alone, 127 laws were passed by congress, 3700 regulations were issued by government agencies, that's two new rules per hour. if you violate the rule, you could be held accountable.

the code now contains too many penalties to count. >> it is impossible for practitioners who specialise in this area to know all the conduct that is criminalized. how then is the citizens to project against unjust prosecution and punishment for making honest mistakes foreign gauging in conduct they had no reason to know was illegal. >> congress is looking at creating a task force to shrink the rules. the problem is not too many rules, it's enforcing ones on the book. can too many laws handicap the system making normal law-abiding citizens criminals. molly gild works to promote rules that fit the crime. and roscoe howard, a former u.s.

attorney for the district of columbia. welcome to "the stream." mohly, are there too many laws on the books? >> congress things so. yesterday a sentencing reform bill was passed, including a crime count, that the department of justice and federal agencies compile all the crimes on the books and regulations and put them in one place, publicly available on the website >> they are not in one place. >> no, they are spread through the multivolume federal criminal code. if you go to where you think the crimes are, you'll find some of them, but not all of them. you need to go to many places to find everything that is a crime. >> if these things exist independently does that many there's overlap. >> sure. people see a problem and think the solution is to make it a

crime, slap on a punishment and the problem is solved. we may have multiple people doing that. >> is there a problem having too many laws on the books. >> the problem is there's too many laws on the book, it's hard to keep up with, 45 or 4600 laws, something no one could track. what you try to do is get someone withexpertise and get used to the laws that you want to use. there's a lot of laws there that exist. they are outdated, outmoded. we do not go through the criminal code and get rid of the ones that no longer apply or are very infrequently enforced. >> is there a problem in terms of cost. i'm assuming there's a large amount of time that goes into this and resource when it comes to the lawmakers at the state and federal levels, creating the laws, a lot of which is

redundant. is there a cost associated with this, that you can put your finger on? >> no, actually, i don't think you could put your finger on the cost. let me say i agree with the guess, that there's too many laws and regulations. i'm concerned that we can go off in a direction that doesn't get at what i believe is an important issue, the fact that there are more people incarcerated in the united states or any country in the world, and that we have people incarcerated for crazy drug laws that were passed so people can run for election. i'm concerned on the task force that i sit on that we are focused on white collar crimes, that people are not incarcerated. although i think they are terrible and we need to clean it up, we need to set priorities. >> we'll get to that later. now we want to focus on the idea of whether there are too many laws and what the repercussions are of that.

talk about the difficulty of enforcing all of these laws that are on the books. is that possible? >> i think the bigger problem is that you have different enforcers. there's a lot of concern that you can't be arrested just by the fbi coming to your home, but you could be arrested by the epa coming to your business site, saying you have done something wrong. you could be investigated by a number of different agencies. >> the community is chiming in. mark says the result is: >> we have a video comment. give him a listen. >> i'm jessie, i'm a policy analyst at justice fellowship. for match of the united states history the responsibilities and duties associated with crime

fighting was an issue for state and local zosts. one of the first laws enacted created 20 federal crimes, there's 4500 federal crimes. the practice of overcriminalisation compounds the system, goes against fundamental law principles and makes actions culpable. >> what is the role of congress here? you are the ones make the the laws, but agencies are creating, like you heard molly say, enforcing the laws. where do lawyers makers -- lawmakers stand. >> we realise this needs to be changed. people fishing in the wrong space are crazy situations, and they are arrested and have hundreds of thousands of legal expenses. there's a lot of things to be

cleaned up. i'm worried about us getting lost in the min usuala. >> a lot of people think more laws make us safer. is that not the case? >> not necessarily. i mean, keep in mind that we are a unique country, and in theory prosecutors can exercise discretion. there are a lot of agencies who make rests. in the federal government all the agencies come up through the justice department if they want to go to court. in theory you should have people in place who will make decisions. not every law is enforced. prosecutors make decisions on which ones to go forward on, which ones are worthwhile. and they work with state and local authorities. the biggest overlap are in the drug laws. everything the state can do, the federal government can do, and they talk to each other. there should be nobody who is prosecuted for the same act by

the state and the federal government. that's because the two of them talk and decide which way is best to go. so, you know, there is some filter there. there are all these laws - not all of them are used. there are laws, but all come in in theory in each district through one person, and that person is making decisions and in the vast majority of cases are dismissed. we talk about resources, but there is no - certainly no federal posterior who will be allowed to spend more resources than they have. they pick and choose their cases. in a miami florida, you may not do what looks like a large drug case that may get done in, say, idaho, because they don't have the volume of cases or the problem. >> i mean, the question is is this still safe, are commuters responding. does it make us more safe: no,

it doesn't. laws are not followed by lawmakers. and: >> given the number of laws and regulations on the books, it is likely that you have violated some of them. if you are caught you may have ended up with a criminal record. when we come back, the unintended consequences of having so many laws on the book. as we go to the break, check out unusual laws created by the states.

>> they said i was a criminal if wondered into a wilderness off limits to motorized vehicles when a friend and i were lost in a blizzard. didn't matter that we never intended to enter the wilderness or that it was not marked or that we didn't know there was a wilderness there. i could have been imprisoned for up to six months. maybe i should be grateful i wasn't sent to gaol. and i guess i am. someone else may have ended up in prison. >> welcome back. we are talking about the size of the nation said criminal code and the impact it has on ordinary citizens. that was retired raise car champion testifying before congress about his experience going from ordinary citizen to clueless criminal. and he is not the on one. harvey silverglade is the author of "three felonies a day", how

the feds target the innocent. give us other examples of how people unknowingly broke the law. >> i have had clients indicted for security's fraud for engaging in securities transactions that i, as well as other experts in the securities field - i'm basically a criminal defense and civil liberties lawyer - but we showed transactions to security lawyers and scratched their heads and said "what doesn't seem to be criminal to me?" yet the client is expected to have known what other experts thought was okay was criminal for him to engage in. that's a problem of vagueness, not just too many laws. but those that people don't understand. >> that's the problem. the we have to talk about state

and federal law, it's a federal problem. by and large state laws are easier to under. federal laws for technical jurisdiction reasons talk for example in terms of male fraud, fraud in the use of males. male fraud, fraud in the use of email and the telephone. but the definition of what constitutes fraud is left for everyone to decide for themselves. >> people find themselves snagged by some of these laws. what is the collateral damage for them when they have done something nonviolent, and suddenly have a crime on their record? >> the collateral damage is people wind up paying tens of thousands in legality costs, they lose their employment, having their businesses compromised. people testify before our committee that have gone out of business. the one example i gave of fishing in the wrong area, and

wound up losing their business. if you are incarcerated in our society, we believed if you did your time, paid your debt to society, you were reintegrated back in. you serve pretty much a life sentence, part inside, the rest outside when you can't get employment, can't be in public housing, et cetera. we have very serious overhaul of the criminal justice system. >> who are the gatekeepers and the people that step back saying "this doesn't make sense, we wouldn't prosecute for this." >> you'd like it to be the prosecutors. they are going to be uneven. i think the points that have been made are excellent. they will be uneven. you'll have some that take a harder lock. i thought it was a good idea for the prosecutors to have a mix. they should be as diverse as society is diverse. women, minorities, people that

give you different points of view. they should be the gatekeepers, the ones that step back. a lot of the federal laws are vague. they are vague so they don't miss the max. they are vague to address the changes in society. to be able to keep up with the internet, to be able to keep up with the drug laws, and so congress passes laws with fairly vague terms to they don't get outdated in a hurry. you'd like it to be the prosecutor who sits across from a police officer, sits across from an federal bureau of investigation agent and a dea and says "you're kidding, we are not doing this.". the community is chiming in about a lot not knowing it's a crime. they say:

should not the state of minds or the intention also matter when >> ignorance isn't a defense, but shouldn't the state of mind matter when it comes to charging individuals that don't know they are committing a crime. >> absolutely. we always consider a person's intent. we know we shouldn't kill each other and we have to intend to kill each other, and we have lost the distinction between crimes we know are inherently bad and crimes that are not necessarily inherently bad, they break a regulation. the other important n point is what is the punishment. ignorance as a law may not be an excuse. but do we have to pubbish every violation, sening them to gaol or a criminal court. we can do fines, penalties,

restitution, not every problem in this country can be solved with prison, and not every problem should be solved with prison. >> being tough on crime works at the polls. what role does prosecutorial ambitious play in this. >> look around the country. chris christie was a prosecutor, it's not hard to find these guys. you get in a mags where your name is out there in the public. in your community, if you work for something like a position as a u.s. senator or congress person, the people will know who you are. you find ambitious people going after the jobs. at the federal level with the united states attorney, we are appointed by the president of the united states. >> can i jump in? you mentioned chris christie. that brings to mind a topic that i wrote about in an op-ed in the "wall street journal" recently.

chris christie was the u.s. attorney in new jersey, a hard-nosed guy and went after a lot of people, including people that had no reason to think they'd broken the law. his administration is under federal investigation by his successor because of the thought that maybe this bridge gait scandal, stopping the traffic in fort lee with a phoney traffic study, maybe that voilated federal law. but the fundamental problem is nobody can define the laws. >> will there so many laws that if there's a vind ictive prosecutor and wants to prosecute somebody, he or she could find fit. >> let me give you an assurance. if someone follows you or me for a full day and saw and heard

everything we did, that person can arguably come up with three felonies - that's where i got the title of my book "three felonies a day", if you pick up the phone, call someone and don't quite tell the truth - that's very common to not tell someone everything. arguably there's a felony. it's gotten so that everybody is in danger. the only question is are you going to end up in a position where a prosecutor will want to get you because if the prosecutor wants to get you chances are he will be able to. >> can i say something here? this swaying is not equal, it's not applied equally, we know who winds up getting arrested and prosecuted and convicted in disproportionate numbers. we need to address some things

that are structurally and fundamentally wrong. there's an issue about overregulation in all of that. we have to prioritise and assist shameful when people run for office and try to pass laws. there's a lot of people in prison today. that's why we have three strikes. and this: >> what is the fix? >> absolutely. >> is it possible to pull back on any of these existing laws or regulations. tweet us your thoughts. we are back in 2 minutes.

sf >> hi, i'm from new jersey, and i'm in "the stream." >> welcome back, we are discussing ways to address the growing number of laws and regulations we are expected to abide by even if you are unaware they exist. >> do you think weigh could see movement in congress to address the issue. >> i hope so. a bill is working through the senate. and there's a companion in the house changing minimums, something that your guest worked on for years, and when the crack and powder sentencing was changed, it needs to be retroactive. there are thousands in prison who should not be imprisoned because the law was changed. i'm looking forward to working on that in the house.

interestingly some of the most conservative members of the house and the senate, the people in the tea party, and the heritage association, there is unity there that is bipartisan, if you believe in smaller government, why would you want to lock anyone up. >> there's so many laws that prosecutors could convict a ham sandwich if they wanted. and: >> mohly, let's talk about reform, what can we do moving forward to make it better for all citizens. >> there's a bipartisan bill in congress moving the the senate judiciary committee moved

forward the smarter sentencing act, including a beginning solution. that crime count, the catalogue of everything that's a crime. it also really gets at this question of who needs to be imprisoned and how long do they need to be there. our prisons are expensive. they are sucking up a quarter of law enforcement funding. every time we lock up a nonviolent drug offender or a guy breaking environmental regulation, that's money we could spend on putting cops on the street, prosecutors, victim services, keeping the public safer. it is moving. it's a really unique group of people. when you have raul labrador and bobbie scott of virginia, mike lee and nick durbin... >> i'll take it. >> is it possible that laws come

off the books? >> i don't know if they come off. they should. certainly prosecutors make decisions not to enforce laws. as you look around the country the easiest is the marijuana laws. prosecutors are enforcing those less and less and in two states they made it okay to smoke. >> there are reforms. >> there's 30 seconds left. if someone followed you or me around we would have committed three fellionies. what did you commit today? >> i had a couple of conversations where i couldn't tell them the whole context. that's a kinded fraud. there's a reform that would insert a requirement of intent in every criminal statute. >> that is all the time for this conversation. thank you to all our guests. until next time, we'll see you all online.

>> seeking help from the united states - ukraine's opposition leaders prepare for a meeting with john kerry. >> hello, welcome to al jazeera, live from doha. also ahead on the program - the final push. anti-government protesters are on the streets of bangkok on the eve of the election. >> an al jazeera team reach a remote village in