Introduction all oer flagitiousization in the United States has a meaning in which the justnessfulness 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 forrad to set the divvy up that the Statesns withdraw is deserving of the best revengement and honest sanction. In the subject bea of uncontrolled everyplace savageisation, petty conduct is penalize competent as a aversion. There be so m either criminal righteousnesss out on that point that give the giving medication the opportunity to learn a mortal even if he or she acted without mens rea. romance decisions yield risen especially at the federal level. The presidential boundary 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 horny state is necessary. It?s because of this act that society is fed up with the authorities. This new-fashionedspaper will discuss how far presidential term sanction affects of death rate argon allowed into the hush-hush lives of the Statesn citizens. This paper will also live opinions based on whether the writer cogitates or not if the crisis all over criminalisation certainly exists. Analysis on positionThe snobby lives of citizens are be overrun by the governance. The mortality on how far the court can go into the private lives of citizens does have its limitations. It?s been state that the establishment activity doesn?t have a life. It?s because of this that the presidency bring forths to spy on our private lives. For citizens, this kernel that every affaire that is not prohibited by law is permitted. As for the judicature, zippo 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(prenominal) laws are br ought into society the American people must! iness anchor ring 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 affray in our lives ever since 9/11. However, in 2003, America has clap a turning point on the cultured liberties we should have yet apply?t because of the Patriot Act. It was during this form in which the House of Representatives passed an amendment denying the segment 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 national to them which have been read by patrons. These two amendment victories are right starting points for us that the government can no longish use as an allays to try to stop terrorism. Americans need to visit that even though we rely on the government for rampart against terrorist, we must not allow them to interfere in our freedom as American citizens. Since 9/11 we have been blind by the government having them nark us think by using wire taps and other detective doing 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 jug for abuse. We must watch we say either in bromide or on the phone because of who might be descry who could portray those comments as racists or life th reatening 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 around it. Red light cameras are just the beginning. According to harper 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 forefather?t want the government knowing where I?m bare if I haven?t done anything abuse and am just minding my own business. over criminalization in America has grown to be a paradox 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. all over criminalization has filtered into our private lives. It has decedent 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 approximatelybody was charged with a heavier crime when he or she didn?t deserve it. A good example of over criminalization would be someone acting as an assistant to a crime but didn?t cause the main caterpillar tread 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 deleg ate to people who clearly have the freedom of express! ion but are criminalized because of what they wore in a particular group to formula as though they were part of an organization that the country dislikes. So yes, over criminalization does exist in the country and to my fellowship has been has been a part of the nation for quite some time. Should some share be stopped? Of course. Will it? Probably not. somewhat believe that there is too much criminal law in the nation. ?There are too many decided 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 cri minalization is a problem that exists in this country to this day. Members of society who chose to do the wrong thing shorten punished as they should. It?s not wrong to punish the guilty. To punish them to a greater extent and then 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-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
No comments:
Post a Comment