Donald Trump and Hunter Biden Are Both Felons. But What Does Felon Really Mean?
For hundreds of years, a felony has been defined not by the action itself but by how we punish it.

"Guilty," pronounced the May 31, 2024, Associated Press headline: "Trump Becomes First Former US President Convicted of Felony Crimes." Just 11 days later, The New York Times blazoned, "Jury Finds Hunter Biden Guilty of 3 Felonies." Regardless of what politicians and pundits performatively proclaim, Republicans and Democrats share some common ground.
The term felony derives from the Old French felonie, which meant wickedness or treachery. That in turn came from the Medieval Latin term felonia, with similar connotations, though with a melodious flow that could have placed it on the top baby names of 2023 beside Olivia, Amelia, Sophia, and Aria. The word's roots go further back to the Proto-Germanic word fel, which meant "to deceive" or "to betray." From its inception, the word has been associated with severe moral and ethical breaches.
The term began to take on its legal significance in medieval England. The first recorded legal use of felony appears in the Statute of Westminster (1275), enacted during the reign of King Edward I. The statute categorized felonies as crimes punishable by death or severe penalties, reflecting the feudal justice system where such trespasses were seen as grave offenses against the king's peace.
Use of the term hasn't changed much since the 13th century. Felonies are still defined not by the action itself but by how we punish it. In the United States, any offense punishable by death or more than one year's imprisonment is called a felony.
Before acquiring legal connotations, felon was a literary term. Even after it became a category for crimes, in the absence of legal guidance, people turned to sermons and stories for context. The earliest examples of the word in literature are "never about single acts; they are always about identifying what role the character will play in the story," said Elise Wang, an assistant professor at California State University, Fullerton, and the author of The Making of Felony Procedure in Middle English Literature, in a June workshop with the Modern Criminal Law Review. "If someone is called a felon, you know that they're the villain of the story [and] it's almost always about betrayal."
From feudal England to 21st century America, a felony has always had collateral consequences, including a social agreement that the perpetrator has forfeited a good life. Whether the felony is murder, theft, or decidedly modern violations such as fraudulently falsifying business records or lying on a form to purchase a firearm, all are grouped together and theoretically represent the gravest breach of our collective trust.
With an estimated 19 million Americans living with a felony charge—including an extremely disproportionate 33 percent of African-American males—it's worth reexamining this relic of a feudal society. Perhaps it's time to think harder about which behaviors are egregious enough to render those who commit them forfeit of a good life. Indeed, having no king with whose peace we must be concerned, perhaps it's time we consider our own.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Gold and silver are up. Hunter Biden paintings? Likely not so much.
NOTHING coming from the media, government or elite can be believed or trusted.
Citizens need to develop the ability and confidence to discern truth from lies, asking tough, uncomfortable and often illegal questions excluding ambiguity using correctly applied logic and science.
But look at the bigoted stupidity of people simply demonstrated by the arrogance of ignorance of people posting here. They fear truth. These people are just a sample of humanity.
These people are elements of a broken world. Look how people treat each other.
It needs to be fixed. The process of criminalizing lying employing correctly applied logic and science is the ONLY thing that will fix it.
Queue the ignorant arrogant bigots.
^^Disgruntled buyer.
What’s that, your agreement or disagreement?
Are you afraid to take a position in case I prove you wrong?
^Fucking Nazi shit. Hey, nardz, trueman and JFucked why are you not pitching in here?
Everyone knows this kind of post is normal for you.
This is what you’re saying about yourself when you parrot “Nazi”.
1. You’re upset by something I’ve said.
2. You’re too stupid to actually refute it.
3. You’re too bigoted to consider that what you can’t refute might be true.
4. You’re too stupid to consider your dilemma in silence.
5. You’re so angry that you’ll make a fool of yourself trying to anger me too.
6. In the case of a hasbara troll you’re willing to say all that about yourself for a few shekels..
If lying was criminalized, fuckwits like this would figure it out, the only way they are capable,
Saying “I don’t know you’re a Nazi” while the truth, probably wouldn’t have the same appeal to this fuckwit,
^Fucking Nazi shit. Hey, nardz, trueman and JFucked why are you not pitching in here?
Bigots? Like people who rant and rave about hating Jews?
Their value is held not in the painting but in the USA treasury. They've payed off.
Not only that, neither Trump nor Hunter are felons. That would not happen until either are sentenced.
fraudulently falsifying business records
He didn’t fraudulently falsify business records. He fraudulently reported or failed to report them to the public.
But so it goes when you talk about the 700 yr. history of the word felon and even the expansion of felonies in the modern era, without even mentioning the words ‘novel legal construction’ or 'gun control'… like a retard.
"and even the expansion of felonies in the modern era"
Gotta add the wrongthink, party affiliation, and racial minority/white-guilt modifiers.
Felonies and lawfare is expanded for some, and completely overlooked for others.
"without even mentioning the words ‘novel legal construction’"
Is that when the judge pulls the jury aside and says "so, you are probably going to turn in a 'not guilty' based on the law, the evidence, and common sense...but here's why you should reconsider that..."
Only leftists say Trump is a felon without also explaining how he was such a poor, poor, victim of an unfair trial by a mean, mean prosecutor. So unfair. So mean. So unfair.
Poor sarc. The one true victim.
What was it like being dishonorably discharged?
Are you making shit up?
He certainly never speaks the truth.
What was it like being dishonorably discharged?
I'm not sure. Ask your traitor bff Bradley Manning.
So binary.
It was an unfair trial.
The trial was legit. The law that turned non-crimes into felonies was not.
From what I saw reported in all media right and left was anything but a "legit trial".
All the while trump was being railroaded by Obama's prosecutors, 1000 people were murdered in New Yok, City.
Some of the charges are totally bogus, such as the Stormy Daniels pay off and then there's the lunatic ravings of E. Jean Carol who obviously spent too much time around Hunter S. Thompson.
BTW, Fani Willis may soon lose her license to malpractice law.
But the murderers don't have any money and it seems a large number of them are favored illegals not beholden to our laws so it's all good.
Leaving alone all the other cases, you and I both know that the business documents conviction was 100% unmitigated bullshit.
Go to hell you lying marxist whore. That "journalists" continue to look at that soviet show trial and declare it legitimate and above board on one side and the DoJ bending over backwards to excuse the actual acts of the other as somehow come away saying anything but the system is corrupt beyond saving is insane. Then I remember, most journalists are leftist activists, totally unconcerned with the truth.
Smelling like a postbellum, all white jury’s verdict in the Democratic Party Jim Crow south.
My solution is to limit all verdicts to a monetary restitution, for damages, court costs, and all ancillary costs like wages lost, travel expenses, forensic work, police work, and so on. This includes what I call "intangible harm", such as loss of companionship, future income, and so on.
And if you have any unpaid verdict debt, you are an outlaw, unable to complain about any lesser crime. For a burglar or some other "ordinary" criminal, this means anyone else can steal from you. For a murderer, rapist, or any assault with ginormous hospital bills, this means you can be kidnapped, locked up, even killed with impunity. And if you're a rich murderer who pays all your debt, don't think that gives you freedom to kill again; what you've really done is admit you are a bona fide threat to everyone you meet, and liable to be killed in legit self-defense by literally anyone near you.
The point is, it eliminates the need for all the various crime classifications. Felony vs misdemeanor, first degree vs third degree, all become meaningless. How much verdict debt have you paid, how much do you owe?
OK, so if someone shoots a homeless person, they’re on the hook for however arbitrarily high the state decides to investigate the deaths of homeless people or they’re on the hook for nothing because homeless people?
So if Daniel Perry or Daniel Penny can’t afford to pay whatever sums get folded into
hardship and mental anguish“intangible harm” they get to walk around for the rest of their lives with a bullseye on their back?Routh can afford to pay the bills against him and him or anyone like him get to take a free shot at public figures?
How do you propose to resolve something like Stephen Paddock?
Weren’t you the one declaring all courts or the judiciary to be fundamentally crooked? This is your idea of justice and the way to straighten it all out? I'm no top-tier, genius-level criminal mastermind and even I can see how not-even-half-baked this is.
I'm not at all sure what you're rambling about. Clarify it, stop rambling, and I will try to answer.
I’m not at all sure what you’re rambling about.
Not surprising for someone called ‘Stupid’. One sentence per point too much for you? The one sentence was 10 words long. I’ll try to ‘ramble’ less than I did otherwise.
The law already has “intangible harm” baked in. It’s just not criminal law. Intangible criminal harm would be victimless.
More critically, all you’ve done is address the restitution. You haven’t addressed the justice. Pinning a bullseye on a convict doesn’t fix wrongful convictions.
You sound like the tards around here crying about DeSantis. Crying about how death penalty juries would kill more people. Crying even though they don’t find people guilty. Showing you understand the justice system as well as Emma.
Still too rambling and verbose, Stupid? Because “I don’t understand. Too rambling.” sounds like sarc/jfree.
The elite aren’t punished. The poor are crucified.
That the way it is now.
You just want to eliminate the illusion.
That the way it is now.
That's the way it always has been. We still live in a feudal society. Only the costumes have changed.
No, nazi, you didn't read what I posted either.
It’s not necessarily fair to call him a Nazi. He could be an Islamist terror supporter.
"The point is, it eliminates the need for all the various crime classifications. "
Declaring wrong doers outlaws was the standard practice in medieval England. And it was much like you said it was, where it was essentially open season on outlaws, who could even be killed with impunity. Also anyone providing aid or comfort to an outlaw was also subject to penalties. The problem was it didn't work. I've read that up to half the population of England ended up on the wrong side of the law as a consequence, and the system had to be scrapped.
Learn your history.
Outlaws began before then, because society was too poor to house criminals at public expense. Small crimes could be paid off with fines. Big crimes required eliminating the public danger, and because a lifetime of jail was beyond their means, they were outlawed. It wasn't a question of individual justice but society's survival, as dictated by kings and others.
Do you actually think our current judicial system provides any better "justice" for individuals? It's still oriented to preserving the State.
Maybe you are the one lacking any reasonable sense of history or justice.
"Outlaws began before then,"
I never meant to imply otherwise.
"because society was too poor to house criminals at public expense."
It wasn't too poor to torture or mutilate those who fell afoul of the law. These were typical punishments meted out to the poor. Imprisonment was reserved for the wealthy, those from whom the state could hope to wring out a handsome ransom. Debtor's prisons existed well into Dickens' times in the 19th century.
"Do you actually think our current judicial system provides any better “justice” for individuals?"
I do. But for the poor. The wealthy have managed to look after themselves throughout the ages.
"Maybe you are the one lacking any reasonable sense of history or justice."
Your comments tell me otherwise.
No, you’re the moron. You prove that every day here, and probably everywhere else.
No, you shut up!
FOAD, asshole.
The "prosecutions" against Trump along with those who peacefully protested on Jan.6 are a preview of what's coming next if Harris/Walz are in the White House. That regime will then fully expose itself as what it really is: a neo-Marxist/communist version that plans to punish anyone who dares speak out against it.
We are already seeing the signs of attacks against the First Amendment with governors such as Newsom, a WEF stooge singing into law that would make it illegal to post "bad" memes. Hillary wants to imprison people for disinformation, and the White House is no friend of the first Amendment either. The DOJ plans to prosecute anyone guilty of disinformation. The FBI has become nothing more than the democrat's version of the KGB/STASI/Gestapo.
Academics, such as they are, already railing against the Constitution and freedom of speech.
So what does this tells you? There are certain interests who plan to turn America into a communist state with a totalitarian government that rules with a ruthless iron fist and don't say it can't happen here because it has happened in other countries and we're next.
A totalitarian government uses every means necessary to silence the opposition and destroy anyone who dares defy it. Every single version, without exception becomes a ruthless regime run by murderous psychopaths.
My guess is this: Harris/Walz will be installed in the White House. Harris will soon be removed either by a tragic death or by a coup. Walz will then become "President" who will then act more as a Premier over what will then become America's communist party now in power. Martial law, lockdowns and a collapsed economy leading to food shortages and energy blackouts will soon follow.
The cities will become "no mans land" and even the suburbs will become dangerous. Civil war will become the norm for decades. Washington D.C. may no longer exist or if it does not in the way we know it.
History repeats itself.
As a standard of good, evil, or legitimacy, the term "felon" is a joke. We use it as a practical standard to say we don't want people deemed guilty of certain crimes to have certain rights out of concern they may repeat their behavior. But, it's ridiculous to pretend that it inherently means a person is good or bad. It's a category assigned by the state. That alone should be enough to make it suspect. An evil government can and will make opposing its evil a felony. For a lot of us, had the category existed at the time, our Lord and Savior would have been deemed a felon.
"For a lot of us, had the category existed at the time, our Lord and Savior would have been deemed a felon."
Christians learned to embrace the stigma of opposing state/clerical power. They adopted the method of his execution as the symbol of their faith. It worked well for them as the religion spread across the globe.
If you had the courage of your convictions, you might do likewise. Find a symbol valorizing rape, fraud, cheating at golf, or any of the other offenses Trump is accused of and run with it.
"But...but...Trump" is a really, really stupid response. Is what I'm saying true or reasonable or not? Also, are we to take it that all accusations are now to be assumed true?
He's a statist, and sees everything in terms of furthering the State. If it doesn't further the State's interests, it's evil. Individual justice, for either criminals or victims, is just so much white noise he tunes out.
"“But…but…Trump” is a really, really stupid response."
In an article about Trump? Not really. We can do Hunter Biden, if you like: an artist, adventurer, a man who lives large and life to the full. By rights, it should have been Hunter instead of Harris running for office. But it wasn't and look where we are today.
"Also, are we to take it that all accusations are now to be assumed true?"
Our Lord and Savior never bothered to dispute the charges against him. Let that be your starting point.
""never bothered to dispute the charges against him."''
You dispute the charges by pleading not guilty. Which he did every single time except when a judge denied him that opportunity.
"Which he did every single time except when a judge denied him that opportunity."
You need to brush up on the bible. The newer part, at least.
His Lord and Savior is Trump.
Making shit up again trying to speak for others.
You responded to "Our Lord and Savior never bothered to dispute the charges against him. Let that be your starting point." with "Which he did every single time except when a judge denied him that opportunity."
Man, it’s almost like when assholes (like mtrueman) throw around “Lord and savior” to mock anyone who they suspect of being a Trump supporter, others may not be able to discern when they aren’t saying it tongue in cheek and are actually referencing Jesus.
^^ This.
Or try "the methods used to go after Trump run counter to everything our Lord and Savior advised or advocated".
Why? What part of the bible is going to talk about Trump disputing charges?
You wanted to make Trump disputing charges a starting point. I'm merely pointing out your starting point is incorrect.
To be fair, I think he's arguing that Jesus, not Trump, didn't dispute the charges. Of course, so far, all I can see from him is a suggestion that disputation would be beyond the point, since accusation is guilt.
Ah.
Embrace the charges. In a post modern world, Trump's guilt or innocence is immaterial. Exploit the stigma of rapist, fraud and golf cheat. As Jesus told his followers, Flip the script.
Christ didn't "embrace" the charges against him. The cross isn't a symbol of Christ's guilt of the charges against him. It's a symbol of His acceptance of the punishment for the sins of believers. The attacks against Trump aren't designed to extirpate attacks against his supporters, but to enable them.
It's a stupid and/or malicious suggestion.
"The attacks against Trump aren’t designed to extirpate attacks against his supporters, but to enable them. "
The charges are only an attack if you are willing to accept them as something negative. Trump's supporters need to understand that an evil state's charges of rape. fraud and cheating are a badge of honor. Flip the script, in other words.
"It’s a stupid and/or malicious suggestion."
From a stupid and malicious steaming pile of shit.
an artist, adventurer, a man who lives large and life to the full
Try a two-bit hack leaching off of his family connections to government power to finance a lifestyle of dissolution and degeneracy at the rest of our expense. That is what makes him a POS, not the fact that he lied on a gun application (a crime the rest of us would be doing hard time for, if caught) and his resulting "felon" status. Of course, that sounds like something right up your alley.
Let that be your starting point.
So, your starting point is that the innocent should uniformly accept false prosecution. Or is it just the innocent you personally don't like?
"Try a two-bit hack leaching off of his family connections to government power to finance a lifestyle of dissolution and degeneracy at the rest of our expense."
And?
"So, your starting point is that the innocent should uniformly accept false prosecution. "
You're the one who brought our Lord and Savior into the conversation. Take it from there.
And?
You're the one lionizing him. Take it from there.
I'm not really trying to lionize him. Just putting him at the same level as any other corrupt politician. Leaching off family connections is the least we have to worry about. Taking bribes from the donor class and the myriad lobby groups that infest the capital is far worse.
The Bidens took bribes from America’s foreign enemies. Which makes sense, as democrats are America’s domestic enemies.
Like how you are an enemy of America.
"The Bidens took bribes from America’s foreign enemies. "
You're a damn fool if you think that only the Democrats are corrupt. That sounds harsh but I call them as I see them.
"Like how you are an enemy of America."
And you lack the courage of your convictions, Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day). You're a joke.
Anyone who has broken immigration law is irredeemable. But a felon running for president? No biggie.
The while teial was a travesty of justice.
What law prevents a felon from running for president?
Ask your strawman. It will tell you.
What strawman? You are comparing someone who is not breaking a law by running for president with someone who is breaking the law by not abiding by the immigration rules.
Also, you are projecting with the term "irredeemable". No one here except you have called illegal immigrants that.
The anti-immigrant people will shout all day long about how the law is the law is the law, and immigrants who violate it are vermin poisoning the blood of the nation.
Yet when their god emperor is convicted in a court of law of multiple felonies, they brush it off and say it doesn't matter because he's just a victim of prosecutor Meany Pants.
My point is that they don't give a shit about the law. It's all a front.
""The anti-immigrant people will shout all day long ""
Here's a good tip when debating with people.
Don't speak for others. You are good at misrepresenting them.
‘Straw,am’ is part of a list of words Sarc frequently (mis)uses, but doesn’t understand. He isn’t very good at ‘ascertaining’ the definitions of words he proceeds to overuse.
I don't think anyone thinks it's no biggie. There are just some very different reasons for thinking it is a big deal.
I think it’s no biggie, as far as I could tell he didn’t actually break the law he was accused of.
I think Hunter’s is no biggie too, the drug and gun laws are almost unanimously bullshit. But if anyone not politically connected had done the same thing, they’d be in federal pound me in the ass prison right now.
"Donald Trump and Hunter Biden Are Both Felons."
We know that one of these is not like the other.
Hunter is not much of a criminal. Sure it looks like he peddled influence but he's not convicted of that.
The "felonies" he's convicted of shouldnt phase libertarians in the slightest, just as for Trump
With Biden, what's more absurd are the felonies he is NOT convicted of. Between so many drug crimes that it's a joke and the fact that he had such a treasure trove of bribery data that people thought it was planted, and yet the only thing he was convicted of was lying on a federal form? And the state was forced by the judge to not give him total immunity for a plea of effectively no sentence? Do you know how lopsided a plea deal has to be for a judge to refuse it?
Libertarians don't want no laws. They want fewer and well enforced laws. There is nothing LESS libertarian than the son of a powerful politician getting away with everything short of murder.
Justice involved is what liberals started calling felons before Trump broke them. Liberals were actively trying to remove the stigma for those who are justice involved. For example, under NYC Fair Chance Act you cannot do a criminal background check on job applicants until they have been given a conditional hire status.
Fair Chance Act (copied from a PDF from work)
• Eliminate any reference to arrest or conviction history when advertising for positions. Phrases such as, “no felonies,” “background check required,” and “must have clean record” on job advertisements cannot be used.
• Ensure that your application forms and agents acting on your behalf do not ask whether an applicant has a criminal record or any open criminal cases or ask an applicant to authorize a background check.
• Instruct your human resources and hiring staff to not ask applicants any questions about criminal records, run a background check, or attempt to discover whether an applicant has an arrest or conviction history before the conditional offer.
It's another example of government fixing its previous solutions by adding new solutions, instead of actually correcting any underlying problems. Piling fresh bandages on top of filthy ones hides the original problem and all the previous filthy bandages. It does nothing to cure the original problem.
you put this in the print version?
“disproportionate 33 percent of African-American males”
Does that mean it’s time to start making-up Supremacy felony charges on White Females in the name of equality?
Want to know where that ‘disproportion’ comes from? Over 70% of prison inmates lean Democrat. Close to 90% of the African-American population vote Democrat.
It has nothing to do with skin-color or sex and has everything to do with believing one is entitled to others earnings. A belief most likely formed by the constant racist and sexist indoctrination of left; "I deserve a pony; because..... enter-skin-color or gender"
I think Hoover was the last Republican to win most of the African vote. It began to taper off after him. There's a sad story of Nixon running for office in 1960. MLK had been taken by police in Georgia and his family was terrified that he'd be murdered, a not uncommon fate for black activists at the time. Nixon personally knew both King and his wife and contemplated a phone call to console and give her courage. Nixon had a pretty sound record on civil rights going back to his days as a student leader at Whittier. However, Nixon feared that a call would alienate his white supporters and declined to call. But Kennedy called Coretta, garnered a still greater share of the black vote and won the election.
What a strange and pointless article.
You do know which website you are one, right?
What I want to know is how Trump's conviction hasn't been overturned yet.
Ask his lawyers.
Update.
""Sauer also reiterated arguments made at trial that banks wanted to work with the Trump Organization, did their own due diligence and found no fraud.
“They did do their own due diligence,” Sauer said. “The uncontradicted testimony in the summary judgment record is ‘Everything we did was independent; we didn’t rely on the numbers.’”
New York’s Deputy Solicitor General Judith Vale argued on the state’s behalf that the law gives the attorney general “broad” discretion, but two justices interrupted her opening remarks to ask whether there are any other examples of the state suing “equally sophisticated partners” in such a manner. ""
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/appeals-panel-signals-skepticism-over-ny-civil-fraud-case-against-trump/ar-AA1rgyoR?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=f3db80289f544782a1f4e5940d678162&ei=33
Yeap Trump is guilty of what again? 34 charges and if you found 1 charge out of those as a jury - than it was unanimous? Or not tell the defendant what the crime was till the last day. Or you know the judge that has no conflict of interest because his daughter is a big wig in the democrat party.
Every realtor, builder in the country are guilty too of the obscure 1934 law that has been used, let me check...once against Trump.
Yeap guilty! Nothing to see here
Both have been convicted on felony charges. That IS NOT the same as being a felon. It is possible to be convicted without actually committing a felony. A felon is someone that has actually committed a felon, regardless of any convictions.