Getting Too Tough on Crime
Adam Freedman ·
Apr 29, 2011 at 11:36am
"Tough on Crime" is great in theory, but at the federal level, there's a strong argument that Congress has gone too far. Check out this great paper on the Heritage site that explains how "overcriminalization" (the trend to create more and more federal crimes) raises two big constitutional problems:
- Federalism. Congress has no general "police power," it can only create crimes that relate to the enforcement of its enumerated powers (crimes like counterfeiting and treason). But federal crimes often have but a tenuous connection to any real federal concern.
- Separation of Powers. Even when Congress has jurisdiction, it typically passes vague and overbroad criminal laws (think "honest services fraud"), which leaves it up to prosecutors (the executive branch) and judges to make up the criminal law. That's an improper abdication of the legislative power. Hat tip: Overlawyered.
Does this mean we should go easy on crime? Of course not, but write that email to your state legislator, not your congressman.
- Comment (4)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: Getting Too Tough on Crime
"Anything not specifically allowed is prohibited." That's how all the worst despots operate.
May '10
Re: Getting Too Tough on Crime
It all goes back to Schoolhouse Rock, where we were taught that requiring school buses to stop at railroad crossings was a proper matter for federal law: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ
Jul '10
Re: Getting Too Tough on Crime
To me, the most egregious example was George H.W. Bush's double-jeopardy prosecution of the Rodney King policeman under federal civil-rights law.
Apr '11
Re: Getting Too Tough on Crime
Congressmen think it makes them look tough on crime to pass a bill that makes it a federal crime to kill someone in a street connected to a street connected to a street involved in interstate commerce when murder is already illegal under state law.
What's the downside as a Congressman? There's no harm in piling on top of people who are already murderers. And who needs the headache of explaining to uninformed voters that you voted against this law because it is redundant and outside the purview of the federal government and not because you secretly love the idea of people getting shot up in the streets?