norml21 - Page 5

 those provided by civil and not
 ecclesiastical law.
 Scott, suDra, at 254.
 In summarizing the situation in colonial Virginiaf Scott
 draws the following general conclusions:
 io Jurisdiction over public morals, which in
 England was divided between the civil and
 ecclesiastical court, in Virginia was
 entirely in civil courts, although the
 churchwardens in many cases were required to
 present offenders°
 2o Several English statutes and a few
 common-law provisions were in force in the
 colony, and other English laws were re-
 enacted by title only.
 3o The assembly passed many more laws
 dealing with public moral than with offenses
 against the state, or religion, or the person
 or property. But in numerous instances the
 language of the Virginia statute was largely
 copied from a corresponding Eng2ish law.
 4o In general_ the same kind of offenses was
 singled out for punishment in England. There
 was little difference in the severity of the
 penal:ies inflicted at home and in the
 colony.
 Scott, _ p.4, at 291.
 The historical record is thus clear that ti_e sole rationale
 for the criminalization of acts which have no harmful effect on
 5