BCJ3601 Criminal Law
Atthe moment, Marijuana and prostitution are considered illegal.However, I feel that bhang should be regulated. Marijuana should bedetached from the criminal justice system and regulated in a way thatis similar to tobacco and alcohol. Five jurisdictions in the U.S havealready disallowed the failed marijuana prohibition and altered theirlaws to little sanction amount of marijuana. Washington, Colorado,Alaska, Oregon and Washington D.C. regulating and legalizingmarijuana will bring the largest cash crop under the rule of law. Itwill create economic opportunities and create jobs in the formaleconomy instead of the illegal market. Limited enforcement resourcesthat could be better utilized to look after the public would beconserved while reducing court costs and corrections (Schmalleger &Dolatowski, 2010). Local governments and the state would getsubstantial new bases of tax revenue by regulating the sales ofmarijuana.
Moreover,I feel that prostitution should also get legalized. It is high timeprostitution gets regulated because the evidence points out that itwould reduce violence, protect sex works and reduce sex trafficking.When prostitution becomes legal, it will improve prostitutes’safety along with the concerns of objectification and exploitationsince most of them experience workplace violence at one point.Countries like New Zealand and Germany that have already legalizedsex work have had a drop in sex work violence and the quality of lifefor sex workers has also improved. Such countries have laws andregulations that protect sex workers and ensure that occupationalhealth is observed. Most individuals who argue for the legalizationof prostitution form their basis on a moral or ethical perspectivethat is not always right. The constitution does not guaranteemorality but only protects rights. What guides the society is not theTen Commandments but the bill of rights. If people feel the need tosell their bodies, the law should only provide standards that willhelp do so in the right way.
Legalizationprostitution would translate into better pay for workers wherebymiddlemen and pimps will gradually get eliminated. The police willbegin to protect them rather than extort protection money from thesex workers. In Netherlands, sex workers are under the tax net, andthey pay their revenue like any other citizen. In India, the businessis considered a billion dollar industry and taxing it means that thegovernment also channels money back into the profession, thereforeprotecting sex workers rights.
Accordingto the case, the court argues that they do not focus on guardingsodomy specifically, but relatively, relationships that are personal.It highlights that even though the statutes in question only intendto forbid sex, their purposes and penalties have more consequences.They are far reaching that they touch on the most private humanbehavior, sexual conduct and in private places like the home. Thecourt established that it is alarming for the statute in question toregulate a personal relationship. It highlighted that buildingpersonal relationships is among the liberties that are available andought to choose such affairs without fear of punishment orcategorized as criminals (Schmalleger & Dolatowski, 2010). I cometo an agreement with the Supreme Court ruling because, statutes arenot supposed to regulate personal relationships but rather enhancethem. I find it very wrong to punish an individual for expressing hispreference for sex through a non-commercial conduct that isconsensual with another adult. It does not seem like a worthy way tospend the limited resources of law enforcement.
Thecourt focused more on the fact that laws ought not to targetrelationships between two consenting adults in private because thatis what liberty centers on. The court says that adults have the rightto respect for their private lives. Their fundamental right toliberty under the due process clause provides them with the right toparticipate in their conduct without government intervention.Ultimately the court applies a review that has a rational basis,explaining that the Texas statute does not advance the legitimateinterest of the state that can just an intrusion into private andpersonal life of a person. I find it clear that the Supreme Courtchanged its opinion based on the international and public opinion.The change of opinion highlighted the victory for gay rights, and itstood for privacy right in the bedroom. The outcome got considereddesirable, and it moved the nation towards fulfillment of thegovernment’s vision that got started during independencedeclaration. It said that all individuals have rights that areinalienable comprising, primarily, the liberty to follow theirhappiness, and the only reasonable purpose of the government is toprotect those rights.
Chaplinskygot convicted under a statute of the state for referring to a Cityofficer as a damned fascist and a God damned swindler in a place thatwas public. According to the rule of law, his utterances consideredas fighting words are not permitted to protection under the U.SConstitution. However, the question that stood out was about whetherthe statute that got applied in his case violated his rights to freespeech. When considering the resolve of the first constitutionalamendment, it is clear that the right to free speech is not outrightunder all circumstances. Some scarcely defined classes of speechexist that have never got the protection of the first constitutionalamendment. Some of them include fighting words (Schmalleger &Dolatowski, 2010). These are words that are considered to wreakinjury or tend stimulate an instant breach of peace. Such kind ofwords gets seen as of little social value or exposition that anyvalue they might yield gets far overshadowed by their implications onsocial interests in morality and order.
However,the statute that is at issue gets narrowly drawn to describe andpunish specific conduct that lies within the realm of governmentpower. Furthermore, the New Hampshire Supreme Court, which getsconsidered the final arbiter of the meanings of the law in NewHampshire defined the statute as only applying to fighting words. Asa result, the statute does not unconstitutionally interfere with theright to free speech.
Whenthe Supreme Court in the United States announced that fighting wordsdo not get protected as forms of speech. The pronouncement gotconsidered as a rare form of content that gets founded on theconstraint of speech that is permissible. A person should be in aposition to look at the characteristics that make a distinctionbetween a bona fide criticisms from a fighting word. The primarydifference may lie in the intent of the speaker. Fighting words aremostly intended to cause harm while bona fide criticisms only intendto share ideas. The second difference could be the provocative natureof fighting words, while bona fide words do not.
Schmalleger,F., Hall, D. E., & Dolatowski, J. J. (2010). Criminal law today(4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Learning.