Below are four letters to the Wall Street Journal in today's edition.  The first three are in response to a commentary by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, about the minefield of federal laws and sentencing.  I like the third one, which draws an analogy to the proliferation of confusing rules in professional football.  The rules, as well as the construction of taxpayer-subsidized stadiums, are why I'm no longer a football fan.

The fourth one is by Sen. Richard Shelby, who explains that the real reason Sen. John McCain is opposed to the purchase of Russian rocket engines by the Air Force is because he wants to create a monopoly for his friend Elon Musk of SpaceX.  I find it hard to believe that there is cronyism in Congress.   

Regards,
Mencken's Ghost

Too Many Criminal Laws Are Too Arbitrary

State judges settled millions of felony cases without imposing prison sentences. Across the street, Federal judges lavishly sentenced no-risk, first-time offenders to pitifully long sentences.

Regarding Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner's "Welcome to the Legal Minefield Laid by Obama and the Feds" (op-ed, Feb. 17): During my years on the California bench, state judges settled millions of felony cases without imposing prison sentences. Meanwhile, across the street, federal judges lavishly sentenced no-risk, first-time offenders to pitifully long sentences heedless of the burden on the Bureau of Prisons which, unlike states, has a blank check to build capacity.

Federal law makers are treating malum prohibitum (policy choice) crimes as if they weremalum in se crimes (dangerous crimes): a violation of good public policy that Rep. Sensenbrenner is trying to correct. Congress need not tinker with the settled doctrine ofmens rea; they have already messed up too much law. Instead, the tidal wave of malum prohibitum crimes should require "specific intent" provisions, thereby achieving Mr. Sensenbrenner's objective.

However, the superior solution is to convert all but the "malum prohibitum" federal "crimes" to civil enforcement. Such would allow the plaintiff to enjoin the specific wrongdoing and assess civil fines by a preponderance of the evidence. Not facing prison, defendants would be more likely to make rational settlements. The costs of incarceration would occur only in rare cases involving contempt proceedings.

Larry Stirling

San Diego

All one needs to know about the deficiencies and hypocrisy inherent in the federal government can be found in your lead editorials of Feb. 17 and the op-ed by Rep. Sensenbrenner. Let's see if anything in the Code of Federal Regulations applies to anyone at the EPA, the Dept. of Education or to Hillary Clinton, as it apparently does routinely to the average American without privilege.

Jeffrey Felman

Cleveland

Rep. Sensenbrenner's piece reminds me of recent sports columns in the Journal regarding an ever-expanding book of NFL rules that has been baffling players and refs.

Obviously being accused of committing a federal crime is no game, but that only makes the logic of Rep. Sensenbrenner's case for a default mens rea rule more compelling. In the NFL it is argued that the size, detail and complexity of the rule book has made officiating close to impossible. An unwieldy rule book this past season perplexed players and officials, resulting in many questionable calls. Fortunately football is only a game. The federal criminal code is unwieldy and too complex to allow arbitrary calls by federal enforcers. Rep. Sensenbrenner's mens rea default rule is an eminently sensible improvement.

Phil Campbell

Columbia, Md.

Dump Russian Rockets When We Are Ready

We all agree that the U.S. must cease dependence on Russia. However, if we do so hastily, the result could leave our military in a dangerous predicament.

Regarding Sen. John McCain's "Congress's Cynical Crony-Capital Gift to Putin" (op-ed, Feb. 8): Congress is debating whether a company using the Russian made RD-180 rocket engine should be allowed to compete for U.S. Air Force launches before a reliable American alternative is available. Importantly, these launches send intelligence satellites into space that support our troops abroad.

After the invasion of Crimea, we all agree that the U.S. must cease dependence on Russia. However, if we do so hastily, the result could leave our military in a dangerous predicament.

Sen. McCain's proposal would effectively ground the reliable rockets that launch vital national security payloads by only allowing an additional four RD-180s to be used. Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James recently warned against this approach saying, "We think having access to a total of about 18 RD-180s is reasonable and prudent to maintain competition over these next few years."

If Sen. McCain is genuine in his concerns about the U.S. enriching Vladimir Putin, why not seek to ban other items imported from Russia like the $151 million in arms and ammunition, the more than $20 billion in oil and petroleum products and even the $326 million of crustaceans? It's clear that targeting rocket engines, which amount to less than $100 million annually, is actually about squelching competition in the military launch sector.

Sen. McCain's interest in this issue stems from his desire to eliminate competition for his friend Elon Musk of SpaceX, which has experienced numerous delays and even a catastrophic failure. Sen. McCain's proposal would give SpaceX a virtual monopoly on national security missions even though the company has never launched one. His proposal also serves to eliminate United Launch Alliance, which marked its 105th consecutive successful mission last week, from future competition for military launches.

During these uncertain and dangerous times, assured access to space is critical. It is past time for policy makers to have an honest debate about this issue instead of slinging around inaccurate allegations.

Sen. Richard Shelby (R., Ala.)

Washington