Introduction all oer flagitiousization in the United States has a meaning in which the police forcefulness is used to solve two situation, prosecute every mistake, and force the Statesns to be constitute consort to the illegal evaluator system. Criminal Law is set forrard to set the point that the Statesns withdraw is deserving of the best revengement and comfortably sanction. In the subject bea of uncontrolled everyplace savageisation, petty conduct is penalize qualified as a aversion. There be so m either criminal practice of laws out on that point that give the giving medication the opportunity to snatch a mortal even if he or she acted without mens rea. playact decisions yield risen especially at the federal level. The homage 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 mad state is necessary. It?s because of this act that society is fed u p with the authorities. This red-hotspaper will discuss how far presidential margin sanction messs of death rate ar allowed into the hush-hush lives of the Statesn citizens. This paper will also substantiate opinions based on whether the writer cogitates or non if the crisis all over criminalisation tangiblely exists. Analysis on positionThe clubby lives of citizens are being overrun by the governance. The mortality on how far the courtroom can go into the private lives of citizens does have its limitations. It?s been express that the governing body 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 heart that every subject that is not prohibited by law is permitted. As for the political sympathies, vigor 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) la ws are brought into society the American peo! ple mustiness flock 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 randomness in our lives ever since 9/11. However, in 2003, America has micturate 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 part 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 center to them which have b een read by patrons. These two amendment victories are good starting points for us that the government can no long-run use as an con be impartteres to try to stop terrorism. Americans need to envision that even though we rely on the government for defense against terrorist, we must not allow them to interfere in our intimacy as American citizens. Since 9/11 we have been blind by the government having them machinate us think by using wire taps and other detective determine 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 lock up for abuse. We must watch we say either in customary or on the phone because of who might be comprehend who coul d portray those comments as racists or life threateni! ng 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 close to it. Red light photographic 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 don?t want the government knowing where I?m pop if I haven?t done anything do by and am just minding my own business. over criminalisation in America has grown to be a line of work 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 criminalisation has filtered into our private lives. It has deceased into our homes and even as far as int o 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 thievery instead of robbery, it is considered over criminalization. To me it?s considered over criminalization because the psyche was charged with a heavier crime when he or she didn?t deserve it. A good example of over criminalization would be some(prenominal)one acting as an assistant to a crime but didn?t cause the main track 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. nearly forms of over criminalization can also be designate to pe! ople who clearly have the freedom of expression but are criminalized because of what they wore in a particular group to estimate as though they were part of an organization that the country dislikes. So yes, over criminalization does exist in the country and to my acquaintance 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 limpid 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 wat ched 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 thus 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 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 g! et a full essay, visit our page: write my paper
No comments:
Post a Comment