See, e.g., John Baker, Jr., Revisiting the Explosive Growth of Federal Crimes, The Heritage Foundation, Legal Memorandum No. 26 (June 16, 2008), available at http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/06/revisiting-the-explosive-growth-of-federal-crimes; Gerard V. Bradley, Retribution and Overcriminalization, The Heritage Foundation, Legal Memorandum No. 77 (March 1, 2012), available at http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/03/retribution-and-overcriminalization; Paul J. Larkin, Jr., Fighting Back Against Overcriminalization: The Elements of a Mistake of Law Defense, The Heritage Foundation, Legal Memorandum No. 92 (June 12, 2013), available at http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2013/pdf/lm92.pdf; Edwin Meese III & Paul J. Larkin, Jr., Reconsidering the Mistake of Law Defense, 102 J. of Crim. L. & Criminology 725 (2012); Paul Rosenzweig , One Nation, Under Arrest: How Crazy Laws, Rogue Prosecutors, and Activist Judges Threaten Your Liberty (Rev. ed. 2013); Paul Rosenzweig, Epilogue: Overcriminalization—An Agenda for Change, 54 Am. U. L. Rev. 809 (2005); Brian Walsh & Tiffany M. Josslyn, Heritage Found. & Nat’l Ass’n of Criminal Def. Lawyers, Without Intent: How Congress Is Eroding the Criminal Intent Requirement in Federal Law (2010); Defining the Problem and Scope of Over-Criminalization and Over-Federalization: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 113th Cong. (2013) (testimony of John G. Malcolm), available at http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/2013/06/defining-the-problem-and-scope-of-overcriminalization-and-overfederalization.
 “Overcriminalization is the term that captures the normative claim that governments create too many crimes and criminalize things that properly should not be crimes.” Darryl K. Brown, Criminal Law’s Unfortunate Triumph Over Administrative Law, 7 J.L. Econ. & Pol’y 657, 657 (2011).
 See, e.g., Paul J. Larkin, Jr., Public Choice Theory and Overcriminalization, 36 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 715, 719 & n.13 (2013).
 See, e.g., Susan R. Klein & Ingrid B. Grobey, Debunking Claims of the Over-Federalization of Criminal Law, 62 Emory L.J. 1 (2012).
 See U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, 2012 Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics Figure A (2012).
 See 28 U.S.C. § 503, 506, 506–19 (2006) (the Attorney General has the authority to direct the conduct of federal litigation); Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(c)(1) (an indictment must be signed by “an attorney for the government”).
 Additional examples of the victims of overcriminalization can be found at “USA vs YOU,” The Heritage Found. (June 2013).
 See Tom R. Tyler, Why People Obey the Law (2006); Peter C. Yeager, The Limits of Law: The Public Regulation of Private Pollution 9 (1991) (“As criminologists have long known, where laws lack legitimacy, violation rates are likely to be relatively high, other factors held constant.”).
 Larkin, supra note 3, at 754.
 See Genesis 18:23–32 (Abraham persuades God to spare Sodom if ten righteous men can be found in the city).
 See Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432, 456 (1895) (“[I]t is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer.”); 4 William Blackstone, Commentaries *352.
 See, e.g., Paul J. Larkin, Jr., Clemency, Parole, Good-Time Credits, and Crowded Prisons: Reconsidering Early Release, 11 Geo. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 1, 7, 34–36 (2013).
 See, e.g., Edwin Meese III, Big Brother on the Beat: The Expanding Federalization of Crime, 1 Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. 1 (1997); Edwin Meese III, Overcriminalization in Practice: Trends and Recent Controversies, 8 Seton Hall Circuit Rev. 505 (2012); George Terwilliger, Under-Breaded Shrimp and Other High Crimes—Addressing the Over-Criminalization of Commercial Regulation, 44 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 1417 (2007); Richard Thornburgh, The Dangers of Over-Criminalization and the Need for Real Reform—The Dilemma of Artificial Entities and Artificial Crimes, 44 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 1281 (2007); Larry D. Thompson, The Reality of Overcriminalization, 7 J.L. Econ. & Pol’y 577 (2011).
 See ABA Task Force on the Federalization of Criminal Law, The Federalization of Criminal Law (1998).
 See, e.g., Andrew Ashworth, Conceptions of Overcriminalization, 5 Ohio St. J. of Crim. L. 407 (2008); Sara Sun Beale, The Many Faces of Overcriminalization: From Morals and Mattress Tags to Overfederalization, 54 Am. U. L. Rev. 747 (2005); Darryl K. Brown, Can Criminal Law Be Controlled?, 108 Mich. L. Rev. 971 (2010); John C. Coffey, Jr., Does “Unlawful” Mean “Criminal”?: Reflections on the Disappearing Tort/Crime Distinction in American Law, 71 B.U.L. Rev. 193 (1993); Stuart P. Green, Why It’s a Crime to Tear the Tag Off a Mattress: Overcriminalization and the Moral Content of Regulatory Offenses, 46 Emory L.J. 1533 (1997); John Hasnas, Ethics and the Problem of White Collar Crime, 54 Am. U. L. Rev. 579 (2005); Peter J. Henning, Targeting Legal Advice, 54 Am. U. L. Rev. 669 (2005); Douglas Husak, Overcriminalization: The Limits of the Criminal Law (2007); Sanford H. Kadish, The Crisis of Overcriminalization, 374 Annals Amer. Acad. Pol. & Soc. Sci. 157 (1967); Sanford H. Kadish, Some Observations on the Use of Criminal Sanctions to Enforce Economic Regulations, 30 U. Chi. L. Rev. 423 (1963); Erik Luna, Overextending the Criminal Law, in Go Directly to Jail: The Criminalization of Almost Everything (Gene Healy ed., 2004); Geraldine Szott Moohr, Defining Overcriminalization Through Cost-Benefit Analysis: The Example of Criminal Copyright Laws, 54 Am. U. L. Rev. 783 (2005); Ellen S. Podgor, Overcriminalization: The Politics of Crime, 54 Am. U. L. Rev. 541 (2005); Paul H. Robinson & Michael T. Cahill, The Accelerating Degradation of American Criminal Codes, 56 Hastings L.J. 633 (2005); Stephen F. Smith, Overcoming Overcriminalization, 102 J. of Crim. L. & Criminology 537 (2012); William J. Stuntz, The Pathological Politics of Criminal Law, 100 Mich. L. Rev. 505 (2001); John F. Stinneford, Punishment Without Culpability, 102 J. of Crim. L. & Criminology 653 (2012). Distinct but closely related is the concern regarding the overfederalization of the criminal law. See, e.g., John S. Baker, Jr., Jurisdictional and Separation of Powers Strategies to Limit the Expansion of Federal Crimes, 54 Am. U. L. Rev. 545 (2005); Rachel E. Barkow, Federalism and the Politics of Sentencing, 105 Colum. L. Rev. 1276 (2005); Sara Sun Beale, Federalizing Crime: Assessing the Impact on the Federal Courts, 543 Annals Amer. Acad. Pol. & Soc. Sci. 39 (1996); Kathleen F. Brickey, Criminal Mischief: The Federalization of American Criminal Law, 46 Hastings L.J. 1135 (1995); Stephen J. Clymer, Unequal Justice: The Federalization of Criminal Law, 70 S. Cal. L. Rev. 643 (1997); J. Richard Broughton, Congressional Inquiry and the Federal Criminal Law, 46 U. Rich. L. Rev. 457 (2012); Rory K. Little, Myths and Principles of Federalization, 46 Hastings L.J. 1029 (1995).
 See Symposium: Overcriminalization in Practice, Seton Hall Law School (Mar. 13, 2012); Symposium: Overcriminalization, Northwestern Law School (Jan. 27, 2012); Symposium: Overcriminalization and Excessive Punishment, Yale Law School (Dec. 9–10, 2011); Symposium, Overcriminalization 2.0: Developing Consensus Solutions, 7 J.L. Econ. & Pol’y 565 (2011); Symposium, Overcriminalization: The Politics of Crime, 54 Am. U. L. Rev. 541 (2005).
 See, e.g., John Jessup, “Overcriminalization” Making Us a Nation of Felons, cbn.com (Mar. 29, 2012), http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2012/March/Overcriminalization-Making-Us-a-Nation-of-Felons/; Gary Fields & John R. Emshwiller, Criminal Code Tough to Crack: Struggle to Revamp Illinois Law Offers Glimpse of What Congress Faces in Its Effort, Wall St. J. (Dec. 29, 2011), http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970203686204577116503258144414-lMyQjAxMTAxMDIwOTEyNDkyWj.html?mod=wsj_share_email; Gary Fields & John R. Emshwiller, A Sewage Blunder Earns Engineer a Criminal Record, Wall St. J., A1, A16 (Dec. 12, 2011), http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970204903804577082770135339442-lMyQjAxMTAxMDEwMjExNDIyWj.html; Gary Fields & John R. Emshwiller, As Federal Crime List Grows, Threshold of Guilt Declines, Wall St. J. (Sept. 27, 2011), http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424053111904060604576570801651620000-lMyQjAxMTAxMDIwNzEyNDcyWj.html?mod=wsj_share_email; Gary Fields & John R. Emshwiller, The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act Sets an Unusual Standard for Crime, Wall St. J. (Sept. 27, 2011), http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903791504576586790205241376.html#printMode; Gary Fields & John R. Emshwiller, As Criminal Laws Proliferate, More Are Ensnared, Wall St. J. (July 23, 2011), http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703749504576172714184601654.html; Rough Justice: America Locks Up Too Many People, Some for Acts That Should Not Even Be Criminal, The Economist (July 22, 2010), available at http://www.economist.com/node/16640389.
 See, e.g., Reining in Overcriminalization: Assessing the Problem, Proposing Solutions: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Sec. of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 111th Cong. (2010); Over-Criminalization of Conduct/Over-Federalization of Criminal Law: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Sec. of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 111th Cong. (2009); see also, e.g., Principles for Revising the Criminal Code: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. (2011) (testimony of Edwin Meese III), available at http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/2011/12/principles-for-revising-the-criminal-code; On H.R. 1823, the Criminal Code Modernization and Simplification Act of 2011: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 111th Cong. (2011) (testimony of the Hon. Dick Thornburgh), available at http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/Thornburgh%2012132011.pdf; Reining in Overcriminalization: Assessing the Problems, Proposing Solutions: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary (2010) (testimony of Brian Walsh), available at http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/reining-in-overcriminalization-assessing-the-problems-proposing-solutions.
 Press Release, House Judiciary Comm., House Judiciary Committee Creates Bipartisan Task Force on Over-Criminalization (May 5, 2013), http://judiciary.house.gov/news/2013/05082013.html. The House Judiciary Committee previously had demonstrated interest in this subject. See supra note 18. Creation of the task force suggests that the committee may address the issue through legislation.
 See, e.g., Zach Dillon, Symposium on Overcriminalization: Foreword, 102 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 525, 525 (2013) (“The Heritage Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union joined forces to cosponsor our live Symposium and send the unified message that whether you are liberal, moderate, or conservative, overcriminalization is an issue that can no longer be ignored.”).
 Douglas Husak, Overcriminalization: The Limits of the Criminal Law 14 (2009).
 See Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93, 102 (1997) (“all civil penalties have some deterrent effect”).
 See Larkin, supra note 3, at 743–45.
 See, e.g., Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209, 224 (1993) (“[I]t is axiomatic that the antitrust laws were passed for ‘the protection of competition, not competitors.’”) (citation omitted).
 The First Amendment overbreadth doctrine is instructive here. The doctrine allows parties to raise the free speech claims of others because of the fear that such third parties will avoid engaging in First Amendment–protected activity due to the risk of criminal prosecution. See, e.g., Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 611–13 (1973). A similar concern is applicable here. Overuse of the criminal law can deter parties from engaging in legitimate economic or social activity due to the same fear.