Talk:Felony

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Felony article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Crime and Criminal Biography High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law High‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

"Third degree"

a FELONY IS WHEN SOMEONE BULL OR HAVE SEX FOR FREE....{{style="font-style:italic">(Talk | email) 11:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

capital crime or Class A (or 1) felony, in states that have classes of felonies, while growing marijuana is in a lower class, or sometimes a misdemeanor, depending on how many plants are grown. In states that don't have classes of crimes, both are felonies, but the specific laws for each crime will specify the permitted sentence. And sign your posts. PaulGS 16:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frustrated Father

Eight years ago my wife got a federal felony charge for meth.. She has served 18 months and we have turned our lives around since. We have two boys 15,13 that are going elk hunting this year with me so I purchased a rifle. The only problem is that I have to keep it at my fathers house 40 miles away. Can anyone point me in the right direction for the correct interpretation for what being in possession is. It seems to me that the boys and I should be to keep our guns here at the house so long as my wife doesn't leave here with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.79 (talk) 03:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only your attorney can answer this question competently. I strongly suggest that you disregard any other advice you read here. Simishag 06:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simishag is absolutely correct. Consult an attorney. DO NOT listen to or take advice of anyone on sites like this, as nothing about this particular area of the law is "common knowledge" even though people tend to hypothesize about it. I will say that you are addressing an oft-encountered gray area of the law that is wide-open "test case territory" in many states. If you're willing to be "the tested" or not will depend on how you should proceed. Beware. --LoverOfArt (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Wikipedia is inadmissible in court.Tintinteslacoil (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Or just look it up yourself. Go to a federal law library (available to the public at most major law schools), grab the U.S. Code Service book for 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and start reading the case law. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 22:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expungement

The article makes mention about a 'theoretical' federal felony expungement procedure that is unavailable due to a lack of funding. I am unaware of any such procedure. Even a Presidential Pardon does not afford expungement. I do know that there was a similar procedure for relief from Federal firearms disabilities that was defunded in 1992 (and as such, effectively disallowing the process, thus, persons convicted of Federal felonies cannot ever obtain firearms disability relief short of a pardon) but I am unaware of any such procedures for federal felony record expungement in general. Can anyone elaborate on this? If not, I think it warrants deletion as inaccurate information. --LoverOfArt (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International perspective

This article's leads appears to contradict itself when it defined a felony as a feature of Common Law legal systems, but then goes on to point out that most except the United States has abolished the felony-misdemeanour distinction. Other than the United States, does anyone know of a country which still applies the distinction? Blue-Haired Lawyer 21:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tinkered with the opening line of the lead paragraph to indicate that felonies only exist in some common law countries. Would be interested to know if any common law countries other than the US still use the term? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 05:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This entire article has a very heavy US legal system bias in almost every section, from content to language to implicit norms. It's essentially worthless as is unless you're interested in the US system - even the sections on other countries are structured as mere contrast to the US. It needs re-writing from scratch. 172.221.244.146 (talk) 01:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

a FELONY

a FELONY IS WHEN SOMEONE DID SOMETHING VERY WRONG THEY COMIT MURDER OR DID SOMETHING serious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.211.248.204 (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sentencing for 3 d felonies

Does anyone know the sentencing guidelines facing the 3rd D felony? Burglary —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.67.167 (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United States

The statement "The status and designation as a "convicted felon" is considered permanent, and is not extinguished upon sentence completion even if parole, probation or early release was given." is partially incorrect. In California, upon successful completion of probation, a person no longer has to answer in the affirmative when asked if they have committed a felony other than when they apply for a license or run for political office. The ban on owning firearms remains. Does this bear inclusion in the article? 68.20.37.135 (talk) 12:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, as the completion of probation does not erase the felony conviction from their record, and their status as a convicted felon remains intact.

Incorrect. This line should read :"is usually" to be Accurate. After 5 years in AZ, a felony is deleted if Class 6. Completion of probation must occur before the 5 years waiting period is started. In CA, or AZ, a writ for restoration or expungement, application for pardon, etc, can still be applied for and possibly given before the 5 years is up. So, ban on firearms is not necessarily permanent in any case.Source: ARS code 13."Clear your record and own a giun". Isbn 0-879476-095-x.Tintinteslacoil (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Convicted felons who have gone on to become pillars of society?

Are there any convicted felons who have since become successful politicians, Fortune 500 CEOs, or other prominent figures? Thanks, Tisane ^talk/_stalk 22:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, but David Marshall "Carbine" Williams was paroled early and went on to work for the War Dept designing guns for the war effort during WWII. Aaron Dixon, an ex-Black Panther that went to prison on gun violations, is now an IL senator (although not " "pillar" of society.)Tintinteslacoil (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EXPUNGEMENT

I'm still trying to find an attorney to help me expunge or seal my federal record for a non violent felony offense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.142.214.138 (talk) 09:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place to look, sorry. Try Google. Richard75 (talk) 00:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright is a felony under common law?

This needs a citation. Common law does not address intellectual property issues. 75.101.52.14 (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction between felony and misdemeanour originated at common law, but copyright law is stautory, and the article does not actually say otherwise. Richard75 (talk) 00:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a section on German law?

Since this article is about a common law concept, why is there a section on German law? Germany isn't a common law country. Shouldn't the reference to Germany simply be to include it with the other civil law countries briefly mention in the last line of the lead paragraph? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have some point, the section lists a lot of unconnected factoids that are mostly true (if somewhat not the full picture) and also irrelevant. I may add that the concept of convicted felon has no real equivalent in Germany. Someone may be called a Verbrecher but colloquially it means "scoundrel", literally it means"criminal", and the technical meaning (someone who commits/-ted a felony) seems to be almost never used (maybe due to history and Berufsverbrecher) --88.74.165.208 (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be included because the online translation of section 12 of the German Penal Code (stgb) translates that term as "felony". James500 (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Such a negotiation is § 257c of the German Penal Code. I have not found anything on the Internet that gives any hint on that negotiations were forbidden when discussing even very severe crimes - i. e. felonies in English. I just read a discussion about a woman, who was sentenced to five and a half years in prison for having killed somebody by not helping this somebody. Obviously the court thought that the victim would have survived, had the woman helped them. And then the two parties went on to negotiate the penalty without the judge or the woman in question. The two sides discussing just made the mistake by not discussing matters openly and publicly inside the court room, which is mandatory in Germany. They discussed matters privately in another room, which isn't allowed here, and that, what isn't allowed, is called a "deal" in Germany. As far as I understand matters, there must be a kind of a harmless penalty and a severe penalty and something in between, and then people can discuss about what is a useful penalty for the crime in question and the person who did it. For the most severe crime (that is killing somebody purposely) the penalty is always a life sentence in prison. In Germany that means you CAN get out of this location after 15 years if you behave very nicely inside. But I cannot see anything negotiable that fits § 257c in this case. So, that this bargain is not applicable, as we can read in the artice, is just not true - except probably for murder. Thanks for reading and sorry for my English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:A61:458:DB01:B5AA:AAC6:EAA6:66AE (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List Redundancy

Do we really need to include "various forms of fraud" "cheque fraud" and "mail fraud" as separate line items in the list of felonies? Seems redundant… 5.67.171.247 (talk) 09:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We do not.68.206.141.15 (talk) 01:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rape

Rape is a felony is every jurisdiction in the US.68.206.141.15 (talk) 01:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added a file from Commons

I've added this image from Commons to this article.

Feel free to use it how you like.

I hope it's a helpful source of information.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

I'm not sure what's up with this article, but I'm more and more convinced that it should use American spelling. The earliest non-stub version that I can find used it, and the concept only exists in the US these days. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 10:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest version used offence and misdemeanour, except for one usage of misdemeanor. DuncanHill (talk) 10:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the first instance used misdemeanor, the next one used misdemeanour. Odd. But that version was a stub. The first non-stub version is what we look at. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 10:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I still think that there's a valid argument to be had that the concept of a felony is primarily an American phenomenon since other jurisdictions have abolished it, so it is appropriate to use American spelling. But I'm not like, married to the idea. I'm also not really sure when an article goes from being a stub to not being one. In any case, regardless, the spelling should be consistent throughout. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 10:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) What version are you claiming as the first non-stub? The earliest version had misdemeanour 3, misdemeanor 1, and offence 3, offense 0. The current score is offence 18, offense 16, and misdemeanour 10, misdemeanour 13. So no clear preference.

@DuncanHill: -- looks like the edit conflict ate your signature line.

So I'm not really sure when the first non-stub is. I've gone through the history of the article and it's rather unclear when the non-stub version of the article appears, it doesn't help that all articles from Wikipedia's earliest days look like stubs today. If we do want to keep British spelling, I'm not against it, although I do feel like the fact that the distinction only exists in the US these days is an argument for using American spelling (but then again, the concept of a felony originates at common law). Whatever we decide, we should have one single spelling. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DuncanHill: -- let me know your thoughts! Thanks. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RfC: Should the felony article use American or British spelling?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Well, yes, I'm the OP, but WP:SNOW tells me that it should be fine to close this now; there's no chance the outcome will be any different. There is consensus to use American spelling on this article. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear if this article should use American (e.g. "offense") or British (e.g., "offence") spelling. It is currently using a mixture of both, which violates the the manual of style's requirement for consistency. The original version of the article, from 2001, also used a mixture of both, so MOS:RETAIN doesn't seem to help. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 05:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Use American Style:

I'm of the mindset that we should use the American style as MOS:RETAIN doesn't seem to apply as it was never clear which version dominated the article, and the distinction between felonies and misdemeanors only exits in the US; other common-law countries have abolished it, meaning that there is a stronger national tie to the US for this article. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 05:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think using the American style makes sense. This article appears to place more focus on the American criminal justice system, as there's a large section dedicated to the American system while other countries' systems fall under the section "Other jurisdictions." Additionally, more than half of the references are American sources. 23impartial (talk) 23:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of a felony is much more important in the US than the UK and the classification of crimes as felonies largely only exists in the US. Seems a more reasonable choice if consistency needs to be retained. Timceharris (talk) 00:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have a strong determination about this. But it appears to me that the advice at MOS:RETAIN is useful and I will add my opinion to the side of the large consensus. Jorahm (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Use British Style:

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.