Are Society Members the Victims of Government Overcriminalization?

Running Head: Government Overcriminalization

Are Society Members the Victims of Government Overcriminalization?

John Doe

CJA/340 Criminal Law

Roderick W. Shelton

December 25, 2350

Overcriminalization can be defined as the result of having too many laws in any particular society. Over the past few decades our government has been slowly introducing overcriminalization throughout our nation in small quantities, in order not to alarm society of all the changes they have been undertaking. If one were to think back a few decades, one could easily recall three major federal offenses which were around back then. These offenses were treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. Today, there are thousands of federal laws and regulations; and the violation of any one of them, no matter how unintentional or harmless the offense was can easily lead you to years of imprisonment for that individual person.

The proper definition for public morality is; the term "morality" can be used as

either:

1. descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or,

a. some other group, such as a religion, or

b. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or

2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

Public morality can also be defined in many different ways. One perspective would define public morality as a guide for the public systems of society to recognize certain behaviors as immoral, whether or not you agree or disagree with the government's decisions which make that specific behavior immoral or illegal. These rules and regulations apply to all those who's behavior are to be guided and judged by that specific government or system. The people, who fall under these regulations, must also be aware of the limitations of that system, because as it is with all humans, some people simply like to push things to extremes sometimes.

With that being said, one must ask the questions; is our government's legislative views on morality crossing into our personal boundaries? Why should the government decide whether or not it is correct to marry someone of the same sex? Should this not be an individual decision? When two people consider themselves to be in love; they have the option of taking their love one step further through the process of marriage. With marriage you can now legalize your bond to gain certain benefits which society provides. There are different kinds of marriages, because there are different kinds of religions. These religions can sometimes have different opinions on the subject of marriage, even if this marriage involves two people of the same sex. Presently our society is at a stalemate on this matter, but when we think of this matter each individual has to decide which are more important, individual rights or preserving public order. The only person anyone should answer to is God, not some insane group of conservatives trying to interfere with personal matters in other people's lives, should not concern them. If we say that homosexual couples are below a human (which is what they are essentially saying) and do not have the right to choose whom they may want to marry, then why not go one step further and forbid them from voting, or adopting, or going to school, joining the military, or any other host of rights which as Americans we are born into. Did we not abolish discrimination in 1870? The Constitution was not written for strictly straight people, anymore than it was written strictly for woman, or strictly white people.

How far into the private lives of citizens may government-sanctions views of morality properly intrude? One really has to ask themselves this question,