Void for Vagueness: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
A defendant in the Unite States may be able to challenge a statute on grounds that it violates the fundamental due process clause of the 5th and 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution because it is overly vague. The void for vagueness doctrine has its roots in the notion that everyone should have fair notice of what constitutes a crime. | A defendant in the Unite States may be able to challenge a statute on grounds that it violates the fundamental due process clause of the 5th and 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution because it is overly vague. The void for vagueness doctrine has its roots in the notion that everyone should have fair notice of what constitutes a crime. The requirement that statutes be narrowly tailored statutes is one of the cornerstones of the [[Legality Principle | legality principle]] | ||
The doctrine was explained in Jordan v. De George: | The doctrine was explained in Jordan v. De George: | ||
Revision as of 22:36, 21 June 2010
A defendant in the Unite States may be able to challenge a statute on grounds that it violates the fundamental due process clause of the 5th and 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution because it is overly vague. The void for vagueness doctrine has its roots in the notion that everyone should have fair notice of what constitutes a crime. The requirement that statutes be narrowly tailored statutes is one of the cornerstones of the legality principle
The doctrine was explained in Jordan v. De George:
The essential purpose of the "void for vagueness" doctrine is to warn individuals of the criminal consequences of their conduct. Williams v. United States, 341 U.S. 97, decided April 23, 1951; Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 103-104 (1945). This Court has repeatedly stated that criminal statutes which fail to give due notice that an act has been made criminal before it is done are unconstitutional deprivations of due process of law. Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451 (1939); United States v. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U.S. 81 (1921).[1]
The test for whether a given statue is vague is objective in nature and asks whether the provision "fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute." [2]
The rationale behind the void for vagueness doctrine rests on three interrelated principles:
First, citizens are entitlted to notice of what is legal and what is illegal so that they can conform their conduct accordingly. Second, statutes which are vague invest too much power in the prosecution, resulting in arbitrary and erratic arrests and convictions. [3] Third, statutes which are void for vagueness provide judges with too much discretion in the application of the law.
When the defense of void for vagueness is combined with an affirmative First Amendment claim, heightened scrutiny may apply.[4] However, not every
See Defenses
