Overcriminalization and police officer safety
Some estimates show that Congress codifies more than 50 new criminal offenses a year — who do you figure is going to most often hear about that from our society’s malcontents and miscreants?
The uniformed police officer remains the most visible representative of governmental authority with whom the majority of citizens interact. As a result, local officers and deputies can readily become the symbolic target of frustration or, even worse, a lightening rod for misdirected individuals or organizations that substitute violence for political process.
Poll results reflect the frustration with all levels of government, but especially Washington. According to many surveys, a majority in our society have become disillusioned about the direction our country is taking — a large minority rejecting what they view as increasingly intrusive federal government regulation and activism. Some legal scholars, such as Philip Howard, despair at the problems associated with this regulatory growth, creating an overblown and often dysfunctional expectation of a “cult of safety” and an unprecedented expansion of federal criminal authority.
Proliferation of Federal Criminal Statutes
To compound matters, Congress has given selected federal agencies authority to establish criminal penalties for regulatory violations of what most citizens should rightly see as merely civil issues. If these regulatory “crimes” are included in the count, some experts believe that federal authorities can enforce over 300,000 criminal offenses.2
Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, notes that specialization is a natural result of this increasingly “complex legal system with so many [criminal] laws...”
As a result, more than 100,000 federal officers have found a home in a variety of departments and agencies that few would suspect of needing a specialized armed capability. This list includes the National Institute of Health, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Division of Refuge Law Enforcement, the Department of Labor, the Environmental Protection Agency, and numerous offices of Inspector General to include the Department of Education.
If you think this doesn’t create problems, just ask Kenneth Wright of Stockton, California. In early June of this year, Wright came downstairs at six o’clock in the morning to find what he believed to be a SWAT team at his door. What he soon learned was that the 15 officers were not local police (which, from all accounts, declined to participate in the raid), but instead armed officers from the U.S. Department of Education who were looking in the wrong place for Wright’s estranged wife.3
It’s not surprising that government at all levels routinely proscribe behavior both inside and outside the criminal code. Special interests and vocal angry citizens often pressure lawmakers to address their most abstract civil grievances with concrete criminal legislation, diluting or even eliminating the element of criminal intent in the process. Lawmakers and bureaucrats are also prone to make their personal crusades part of the public agenda. Areas that may be most susceptible to these political whims are child welfare (especially in the areas of status offenses, such as underage drinking), the environment, drug offenses, transportation, agriculture, education, and wildlife protection.
Yes, States Follow Suit
Coupled with the large number of locally-established criminal offenses it is little wonder most citizens are often bewildered at the broad mandate and scope of law enforcement authority.
This may also explain why some citizens demand an immediate law enforcement remedy to their most trifling civil complaints. Civil action just doesn’t provide the immediate satisfaction of seeing a neighbor hauled away in handcuffs for blowing snow onto the wrong driveway or failing to meet their responsibilities in a contractual agreement.
One result of overcriminalization as been that the U.S. has one of the highest incarceration rates of any modern state. One in every 100 adults is behind bars, and if you include those on parole or probation, the numbers show that one in every thirty-one is under some sort of correctional supervision, in no small part because of our so-called “war on drugs.”5
Surveys suggest that many citizens demand even more laws and stronger enforcement by both Washington and local police authorities. The hot-button issue-du-jour of illegal immigration, is but one example.
It’s unlikely that legislators will roll back the number of criminal offenses or reverse the overcriminalization trend any time soon. Lawmakers will continue to pass laws so they can look “tough on crime” while some law enforcement officials will welcome new legislation as another tool to fight crime. Regardless of the motives for new legislation, local law enforcement officers will be the first to witness and experience the reaction first-hand from our society’s malcontents and miscreants.
|Back to previous page|