Position Paper on Over Criminalization in the United States

Introduction all oer flagitiousization in the United States has a meaning in which the righteousnessfulness is used to solve both(prenominal) situation, prosecute every mistake, and force the Statesns to be constitute fit to the illegal evaluator system. Criminal Law is set away to set the pass that the Statesns withdraw is deserving of the best revengement and unplayful sanction. In the subject bea of uncontrolled everyplace savageisation, petty conduct is penalize satisfactory as a aversion. There be so m either criminal rights out on that point that give the giving medication the opportunity to abstract a mortal even if he or she acted without mens rea. flirt decisions yield risen especially at the federal level. The court of law has an act called the Patriot Act which enables them to enter our snobbish lives without us knowing. The can do it without a warrant and take what they go awayed up state is necessary. It?s because of this act that soci ety is fed up with the authorities. This cuttingspaper will discuss how far presidential terminal sanction experiences of death rate ar allowed into the hush-hush lives of the Statesn citizens. This paper will also generate opinions based on whether the writer cogitates or non if the crisis all over criminalisation real(a)ly exists. Analysis on positionThe underground lives of citizens are macrocosm overrun by the governance. The mortality on how far the giving medication can go into the private lives of citizens does have its limitations. It?s been tell that the administration activity doesn?t have a life. It?s because of this that the establishment bring forths to spy on our private lives. For citizens, this mean that every thing that is not prohibited by law is permitted. As for the government, aught is permitted that is not cleared by the law first. The government has infiltrated the lives of the American citizenry for far too long and if every m uch laws are brought into society the Americ! an people mustiness peck to find outher and argue their points for privacy. I believe that any new laws made by the government witch abeles them to intercept in our lives to be rejected by us. I slang?t intend that our founding fathers had this in mind when it comes to our government and their responsibilities. It?s our democracy that guarantees our costlessdom. The limitations mentioned above are plentiful. The government has stepped up the load in our lives ever since 9/11. However, in 2003, America has stunner a turning point on the cultured liberties we should have scarcely apply?t because of the Patriot Act. It was during this form in which the House of Representatives passed an amendment denying the discussion section of Justice the reform to victimize into our homes and view our private files without a warrant. The House also passed an amendment which prohibits the Justice Department from making book stores and libraries pass over somatic and theme to them wh ich have been read by patrons. These two amendment victories are good starting points for us that the government can no all-night use as an salves to try to stop terrorism. Americans need to understand that even though we rely on the government for fortress against terrorist, we must not allow them to interfere in our closeness as American citizens. Since 9/11 we have been blind by the government having them behave us think by using wire taps and other detective work techniques that their actually protecting us when in fact, that?s fair(a) an excuse for the government to invade our privacy. With the government standing on our doorsteps and not knocking but just coming right in, that takes a fashion our rights and responsibilities as citizens. Because of this, we are no longer able to discipline our children in fear that we would be hauled off to gaol for abuse. We must watch we say either in customary or on the phone because of who might be descry who could portray thos e comments as racists or life threatening to others r! esiding in this land or to our government thinking that we are a threat to America. Different technology is coming out for the government to spy on us without us knowing close it. Red light cameras are just the beginning. According to harpist J. (2001), ?Networked cameras will soon be able to track cars end-to-end a city and on the highways. And database technology will make it possible to create permanent records of the movements of all cars captured on camera?. This all sounds good, but I for one acquire?t want the government knowing where I?m bring down it on if I haven?t done anything falsely and am just minding my own business. over criminalization in America has grown to be a business throughout the ages. The government does their job and the police do their job. But who is watching the government for mistakes or the police for mistakes. everywhere criminalization has filtered into our private lives. It has dead soul into our homes and even as far as into our bedrooms. I myself don?t blame the government or the police. Instead I blame each one of us for allowing over criminalization to enter our private lives. We allow outside sources to enter our lives. Over criminalization I believe does exist in this country. It exists because the law exceeds the boundaries of legitimate functions.

When one is charged with an assault because he or she pushed and didn?t cause any bodily injury or if one took one dollar and is charged with grand stealing instead of robbery, it is considered over criminalization. To me it?s considered over criminalization because the mortal was charge d with a heavier crime when he or she didn?t deserve ! it. A good example of over criminalization would be just aboutone acting as an assistant to a crime but didn?t cause the main rail off at of the crime. This person would be held responsible for causing the actual crime when in fact he or she didn?t and was there only as an observer or assistant. somewhat forms of over criminalization can also be delegate to people who clearly have the freedom of expression but are criminalized because of what they wore in a particular group to carriage as though they were part of an organization that the country dislikes. So yes, over criminalization does exist in the country and to my companionship has been has been a part of the nation for quite some time. Should some share be stopped? Of course. Will it? Probably not. some(prenominal) believe that there is too much criminal law in the nation. ?There are too many straightforward criminal prohibitions and that between them they cover too wide a start out of human actions?. Hausak D. (2008 )ConclusionThe government has been invading the private lives of American citizens for a long time. It has only gotten worse since the terrorist attacks that happened on 9/11. muckle are having their private lives being looked at without them knowing it. From having their phones tapped to having their cars watched by cameras in the streets the American people are being watched and listened to against their free will. Over criminalization is a problem that exists in this country to this day. Members of society who chose to do the wrong thing get punished as they should. It?s not wrong to punish the guilty. To punish them to a greater extent then(prenominal) what?s called for is considered over criminalization. This type of criminalization should be stopped. It?s not the way the Criminal Justice system should be used to punish criminals whose crimes don?t qualify as the most total of offenses. ReferencesHarper, J. (2001). Privacilla.org. Past Releases and Reports. Retrieved May 18 , 2009, from http://www.privacilla.org/releases/red-l! ight_camera_testimony.htmlHusak, D. (2008). Notre Dame philosophic Reviews. Over Criminalization: The Limits of the Criminal Law. Retrieved May 18, 2009, from http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=13805 If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper