Three felonies a day

About the book

Harvey Silverglate's book takes its title from an estimate that a busy American professional commits several arguable federal crimes in a single working day. The claim is deliberately provocative. The argument behind it is structural: many federal statutes are written so broadly, and require so little criminal intent, that conduct people regard as normal can be charged as an offense. Silverglate, a defense lawyer, builds the case from statutory wording and from prosecutions he considers overreach.

The book's central target is prosecutorial discretion. When a statute can plausibly cover a wide range of behavior, the decision about who gets charged moves from the legislature to the prosecutor. Silverglate argues that this shift weakens the notice function of criminal law, the idea that a person should be able to know in advance whether an act is illegal. He examines how charges such as obstruction, fraud and false statements can be stretched beyond their ordinary meaning.

Alan Dershowitz is listed as a co-author. The book sits within a long-running debate among lawyers and civil libertarians about the growth of federal criminal law. Its subject is prosecution and the administration of criminal justice, not a single case study. Readers should expect a lawyer's argument assembled from statutory language and reported cases rather than a neutral survey.

How to read it

Approach the book as an argument to be tested. Silverglate has a position, and he selects examples that support it. The prose is direct and the thesis easy to follow, but the reader should ask what counterexamples or limiting principles the book leaves out. The legal reasoning is accessible to a nonlawyer, though some familiarity with how federal charges work helps.

Pay attention to the distinction between what a statute says and how prosecutors use it. Much of the force of the argument depends on that gap. Where the book describes specific prosecutions, note whether the conduct was genuinely ordinary or already questionable, since the strength of the broader claim rests on those cases. The writing is journalistic in places and denser in its legal passages. Readers can move through it steadily without specialized training.

Who it suits

This book suits readers interested in criminal justice policy, civil liberties and the limits of prosecutorial power. Lawyers, journalists covering courts, and citizens who want to understand how federal charges are constructed will find the statutory discussion concrete. It also works for readers who have followed debates about overcriminalization and want a sustained argument from a defense perspective rather than a news summary.

Reading considerations

The book is advocacy, and its examples are chosen to make a point. Readers wanting a rounded view should pair it with accounts from prosecutors or with empirical work on charging patterns. The title's estimate is a rhetorical device, not a measured finding, and should be read that way.