Federalization of Crime in America - Research Paper Example

Federalization of Crime Introduction: The basic demand of the inhabitants of a democracy from its constitution, social governance and administration is to obtain the scope for living a peaceful life, respect for the basic rights and being protected from any form of social arbitrariness. Criminality is essentially a social vice, not an isolated process; several forms of socio-religious, political and economic factors are responsible for evoking the criminal intention among common people and encourage them to be a part of criminal activism. However, major part of the entire population wishes to live freely and they assert their confidence over both constitution and government to remain protected from being affected by traits of such criminal activism. Irrespective of the fact that constitutional foundation of most of the democracies theoretically promise to ensure provide complete protection of citizens from arbitrary actions of state and they promises to provide sufficient scope to common people in the context of protecting their basic rights as human being, unfortunately, on several occasions such promises remain unfulfilled and such incidents have become increasingly frequent among states, which are considered to be pioneers of democratic movement. Social history of the United States of America, though is replete with instances of movements for social rights and the US Constitution, though is considered as one of the most liberal constitutions in the global context, however, it would not at all be difficult to find such examples that would point out social governance of the nation quite frequently have come up with such initiatives that have confined scopes to respect and evaluate human rights both in social and national context. While application of law, especially criminal law is considered to be a powerful device to protect people from being affected or indulged in criminal activities, the governmental policy of federalization of crime has often put both lives of common people and basic aspects of a democratic existence in jeopardy. The American Constitution, theoretically, promises to identify oppression and make proper use of criminal law so that rights of citizenship can be protected. Focusing over the real situation it can be said that such idealistic position has entirely been altered. While ideally it is considered that law should be executed for benefit of the mass, in reality, it has become people should perform in certain ways so that they receive the grace of law but there is no adequate initiative to educate the mass that what steps they are actually required to follow from being coming under scope of legal prosecution. In an average, with the so-called noble aim to prevent common people from being abused by criminal activities, the Congress includes fifty six actions in the list of federal crime every year. This continuous process of encouraging the federalization of crime has led to a situation, resulting in “slippage in enforcement to protect the innocent” (Healy vii) and instead of creating a more secured existence for citizens it has enhanced the confusion among common people that which of their actions would not be addressed by criminal law: “There are now more than 4,000 federal crimes, an increase of one-third since 1980. Many of those crimes, spread out through some 27,000 pages of the U.S. Code, incorporated violations of federal regulations that are in turn spread throughout the tens of thousands of pages of the Code of Federal Regulations. As a result, even teams of legal researchers – let along ordinary citizens – cannot reliably ascertain what federal law prohibits” (Healy vii). Clearly, such inconspicuousness regarding federalization of crime is expected to have an immense effect over socio-political domain as common section of the US society is clearly eager to introduce a noticeable change in the current confusing and suffocating situation. Thesis Statement: It is quite evident, after pondering over the current situation both from social and legal perspective that federalization of crime has actually worsened the standard of democratic life for the general section of the society under the masquerade of improving it. Thus, it is important in the context of the topic to inform concerned citizens about plight of the entire situation and excite their democratic decision making process for the common good of social welfare and improve the standard of democratic existence. Historical Evolution of the Federalization of Crime and evaluating responsibility of the Congress: Federalization of crime, as a process, though has attracted attention of scholars in the recent time; however, a historical evolution would suggest that since initiation of establishing itself as a democracy federalization of crime has been supported by American government. It has always been a quest of the Presidential power to receive an upper hand over judiciary though the American Constitution has clearly suggested both judiciary and executive domains of American governance are parallel in power, none above the other and during the process of governance none should collide with another. However, federal power has always shown a sharp inclination towards determining each of those aspects that ideally are considered to be determined by judiciary and in this context the executive has drawn support of the Congress (legislation) with an intention to assert that support of common people is in its favor. In addition to this, the waves of social, political and economic transitions have also played considerably important part: “The growth of federal involvement in crime and justice and the expansion of the federal crime and justice system in every stage of American history have been related to prevailing social and economic transformations (Shahidullah 51). Every time a society undergoes through such process of social transition, naturally, a great part of the mass encounters troubles, especially within the domain of rights of social existence and citizenship, which is interpreted by federal power as increase in criminal activism and in the name of controlling the situation it has also developed scopes to dominate human actions, even when those are counter-response to arbitrary actions of the government: “The first phase of modernization in America began in the 1830’s and some of the major forces that shaped the events of that time ... brought new problems to and challenges for the new nation, and they contributed to the rise of federal power in all domains of governance including crime and justice” (Shahidullah 51). Keeping in mind such observation, it would be incorrect if responsibility for the negatives of the federalization of crime is entirely thrust over the Congress. Irrespective of the fact that with support from the Congress, the federal authority has received such pervasive power, relevance of social changes and their respective impacts cannot also be denied. In addition to this, Presidential arbitrariness or exposure of executive power also has worsened the situation. American Presidency has a tradition to execute autocratic decision in the name of protecting the sovereign, national security and enhancing the scope of human rights. Since the World War II aftermath, repetitive engagement of the United States in the acts of warfare with other nations is a bright example in support of the observation. Such obsession of power and desire to obtain complete control of the system of governance, American presidents have often used the process, federalization of crime, as an important tool to dominate the mass, even going to the extent of violating constitutional norms: “Two of the most historically revered presidents committed crime that today are unthinkable. Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt simply ignored the Constitution’s basic restraints on the government” (Napolitano xii). Federalization of Crime in the Modern Context: Inception of the new millennium fused with the effects of globalization, has witnessed a new dimension of awareness almost in every aspect of American life. While the common people have become more aware about their rights of citizenship, on the other hand they also have started providing their clear opinion regarding role of the nation’s government towards national and international issues, as they became convinced about the fact that arbitrary governmental actions are affecting their life and relation with rest of the world considerably. Clearly, empathy of common people towards the government is on a decline and to receive an upper hand over such activities, plus reducing say of the judiciary, encouraging federalization of crime is the most powerful device for the government. Thus, restraining antagonism of common people by federalizing of crime has received new impetus on one hand, in the names of good, evil and areas marked by religious constraints, on the other, to provide legislation a stronger grip over controlling common psyche: “… lawmakers have every reason to add new crimes and punishments, which make great campaign fodder, but no countervailing political interest in cutting the penal code. The benefits of overcriminalization are concentrated on the political class, providing nice sound bites and resume filler at reelection time, while the costs are either diffuse … or borne by discrete and insular minorities without sway in the political process, such as members of lower socioeconomic classes or those accused of crime” (Luna 5). In order to enhance the scope of federalization of crime and protect it from being judicially reviewed on the foundation of constitutional rational, the number of judgeships has also been delayed. According to available statistics, though there is almost 145 federal court vacancy for judges, since 1990 only 19 judges have been appointed and compared to this, federal appeal filing has increased almost 39% (Rosenzweig July 24, 2002). While the legal doctrines have clearly suggested that an act can only considered to be criminal if it involves ingredients of mens rea (criminal intention) and actus reus (act of guilt), the Congressional tendency to federalization of crime is a clear violation of such principles and gradually would give birth to new types of criminal acts that would remain unaddressed due to ignoring the role of intention (DeLong 14). In this context, concern of the American Bar Association regarding federalization of crime, which was summed up by former Attorney General Edwin Meese in his statement, seems to be quite relevant: “It is a recognized constitutional principle, deeply rooted in the American criminal justice system, that the general police power resides in the states, not the Federal government. This current phenomenon is capable of altering the careful decentralization of criminal law authority that has worked well in America” (Meese; Cited in American Bar Association Dec, 1999). Conclusion: The Congressional support in favor of federalization of crime is not only restraining common people to enjoy their fundamental rights as enshrined by the Constitution, consequently, it also is proved to be highly antagonistic towards the entire governmental structure. Federalization of crime, on one hand, takes away power from the state law and makes situation complicated for federal governmental to take care of local crimes, on the other, it also provides scope to act of serious crime from being properly addressed. Actual prosperity of a nation cannot be proven with its financial or political supremacy; rather it is integrally associated with the idea that citizens would receive a scope to enjoy their democratic rights and consequently they will feel motivated to contribute to national advancement as gratitude towards the duty that the nation and its government are committing them with. Works Cited American Bar Association. “Danger in Creating Too Many Federal Crimes”. USA Today. Dec. 1999. DeLong, J.V. “The New “Criminal” Classes: Legal Sanctions and Business Managers. Go directly to jail: the criminalization of almost everything. Washington D.C.: Cato Institute. 2004. pp. 9-44. Healy, Gene. Go directly to jail: the criminalization of almost everything. Washington D.C.: Cato Institute. 2004. Luna, Erik. “Overextending the Criminal Law”. Go directly to jail: the criminalization of almost everything. Washington D.C.: Cato Institute. 2004. pp. 1-9. Napolitano, Andrew P. The Constitution in Exile: How the Federal Government Has Seized Power by Rewriting the Supreme Law of the Land. Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Inc,. 2007. Rosenzweig, Paul. "Congress Clogs Courts with too many Federal Crimes." USA Today. 24 July. 2002. Shahidullah, Shahid M. Crime policy in America: laws, institutions, and programs. Maryland: University Press of America. 2008. Read More