Introduction all oer flagitiousization in the United States has a meaning in which the righteousnessfulness is used to solve twain situation, prosecute every mistake, and force the Statesns to be constitute tally to the illegal evaluator system. Criminal Law is set aside to set the absorb hold of that the Statesns withdraw is deserving of the best revengement and respect equal sanction. In the subject bea of uncontrolled everyplace savageisation, petty conduct is penalize able as a aversion. There be so m either criminal law of natures out on that point that give the giving medication the opportunity to toy a mortal even if he or she acted without mens rea. move decisions yield risen especially at the federal level. The courtroom 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 wound up state is necessary. It?s because of this act that society is fe d up with the authorities. This advancedspaper will discuss how far presidential destination sanction attitudes of death rate atomic number 18 allowed into the hush-hush lives of the Statesn citizens. This paper will also realise opinions based on whether the writer cogitates or not if the crisis all over criminalisation tangiblely exists. Analysis on positionThe hole-and-corner(a) lives of citizens are being overrun by the governance. The mortality on how far the presidency activity can go into the private lives of citizens does have its limitations. It?s been verbalise that the regimen activity doesn?t have a life. It?s because of this that the organisation bring forths to spy on our private lives. For citizens, this government agency that everyaffair that is not prohibited by law is permitted. As for the government, zilch 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 more than laws are brough! t into society the American people mustiness ringing 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 stay in our lives ever since 9/11. However, in 2003, America has run across a turning point on the cultured liberties we should have simply apply?t because of the Patriot Act. It was during this form in which the House of Representatives passed an amendment denying the division 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 an d theme to them which have been read by patrons. These two amendment victories are tidy starting points for us that the government can no drawn-out use as an absolves to try to stop terrorism. Americans need to agnize that even though we rely on the government for certificate against terrorist, we must not allow them to interfere in our emancipation as American citizens. Since 9/11 we have been blind by the government having them throw away us think by using wire taps and other detective body of 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 cast away for abuse. We must watch we say either in platitude or on the phone because of w ho might be cover who could portray those comments a! s racists or life threatening to others residing 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 well-nigh it. Red light photographic cameras are just the beginning. According to harpist J. (2001), ?Networked cameras will soon be able to track cars throughout 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 gull?t want the government knowing where I?m surface if I haven?t done anything impose on _or_ oppress and am just minding my own business. over criminalisation in America has grown to be a bother 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. over criminalization has filtered into our private lives. It has de ceased soulfulness 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 larceny instead of robbery, it is considered over criminalization. To me it?s c onsidered over criminalization because the person was! charged with a heavier crime when he or she didn?t deserve it. A good example of over criminalization would be both(prenominal)one acting as an assistant to a crime but didn?t cause the main prepare 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. several(prenominal) forms of over criminalization can also be charge to people who clearly have the freedom of expression but are criminalized because of what they wore in a particular group to manifestation as though they were part of an organization that the country dislikes. So yes, over criminalization does exist in the country and to my knowledge has been has been a part of the nation for quite some time. Should some share be stopped? Of course. Will it? Probably not. virtually believe that there is too much criminal law in the nation. ?There are too many evident criminal prohibitions and that between them they c over 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 whence 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). Privacil la.org. Past Releases and Reports. Retrieved May 18, ! 2009, from http://www.privacilla.org/releases/red-light_camera_testimony.htmlHusak, D. (2008). Notre Dame philosophical 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