The void-for-vagueness doctrine supports accepted American social policies
An ominous marker of any totalitarian regime is a set of laws under which a citizen, more accurately a subject, can be charged criminally at any time and/or on no basis. Such laws are intended to keep subjects wary and on guard at all times such that no mischief against the state can be generated. In other words, “peace.” Stated differently, peace to the leftist means no opposition to the state.
In any totalitarian regime the state is first and foremost, with individuals allowed to exist only to perpetuate the state.
Obedience-through-fright is the objective of these deliberately vague laws. JW readers may recall Section 301 of Turkey's penal code which criminalizes behavior which "offends Turkishness." Similarly with Pakistan's infamous Section 295 which criminalizes various forms of "blasphemy." [Section 295-A forbids outraging religious feelings; Section 295-B forbids defiling the Quran; Section 295-C forbids defaming Muhammad.]
In American jurisprudence such laws would be stuck unconstitutional under the due process clauses of either the 5th Am. (for federal behavior) or the 14th Am. (for state behavior) on the basis that these laws are void for vagueness.
The void-for-vagueness doctrine supports accepted American social policies. {ASIDE: Bear in mind that in the American tradition federal and state constitutions are intended so that the people control their governments. That governments are increasingly and deliberately misreading constitutions in order to assert more and more power over the people is a clear perversion of the original design.} First, the void-for-vagueness doctrine encourages the government to clearly distinguish conduct that is lawful from that which is unlawful. Under the due process clauses, individuals must be given adequate notice of their legal obligations so they can govern their behavior accordingly. When individuals are left uncertain by the wording of an imprecise statute, criminal law can become a standard-less trap for the unwary.
Second, the void-for-vagueness doctrine curbs the arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of criminal statutes. Penal laws must be understood not only by those persons who are required to obey them but by those persons who are charged with the duty of enforcing them. Statutes that do not carefully outline detailed procedures by which state agents may perform an investigation, conduct a search, or make an arrest confer wide discretion upon each agent to act as he or she sees fit. Precisely worded statutes are intended to confine the activities of state agents to the letter of the law.
Third, the void-for-vagueness doctrine discourages judges from attempting to apply sloppily worded laws. Like anyone else, judges often labor without success when interpreting poorly worded legislation.
Finally, the void-for-vagueness doctrine seeks to avoid encroachment on 1st Am. freedoms, such as freedom of speech, expression, petitioning of grievances. Because vague laws cause uncertainty in the minds of average citizens, some citizens will inevitably decline to take risky behavior that might land them in jail. When the vague provisions of a state or federal statute deter citizens from engaging in certain political or religious discourse, courts will apply heightened scrutiny to ensure that protected expression is not suppressed. For example, a law that prohibits "sacrilegious" speech would simultaneously chill the freedoms of expression and religion in violation of the void for vagueness doctrine.
In any totalitarian regime the state is first and foremost, with individuals allowed to exist only to perpetuate the state.
Obedience-through-fright is the objective of these deliberately vague laws. JW readers may recall Section 301 of Turkey's penal code which criminalizes behavior which "offends Turkishness." Similarly with Pakistan's infamous Section 295 which criminalizes various forms of "blasphemy." [Section 295-A forbids outraging religious feelings; Section 295-B forbids defiling the Quran; Section 295-C forbids defaming Muhammad.]
In American jurisprudence such laws would be stuck unconstitutional under the due process clauses of either the 5th Am. (for federal behavior) or the 14th Am. (for state behavior) on the basis that these laws are void for vagueness.
The void-for-vagueness doctrine supports accepted American social policies. {ASIDE: Bear in mind that in the American tradition federal and state constitutions are intended so that the people control their governments. That governments are increasingly and deliberately misreading constitutions in order to assert more and more power over the people is a clear perversion of the original design.} First, the void-for-vagueness doctrine encourages the government to clearly distinguish conduct that is lawful from that which is unlawful. Under the due process clauses, individuals must be given adequate notice of their legal obligations so they can govern their behavior accordingly. When individuals are left uncertain by the wording of an imprecise statute, criminal law can become a standard-less trap for the unwary.
Second, the void-for-vagueness doctrine curbs the arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of criminal statutes. Penal laws must be understood not only by those persons who are required to obey them but by those persons who are charged with the duty of enforcing them. Statutes that do not carefully outline detailed procedures by which state agents may perform an investigation, conduct a search, or make an arrest confer wide discretion upon each agent to act as he or she sees fit. Precisely worded statutes are intended to confine the activities of state agents to the letter of the law.
Third, the void-for-vagueness doctrine discourages judges from attempting to apply sloppily worded laws. Like anyone else, judges often labor without success when interpreting poorly worded legislation.
Finally, the void-for-vagueness doctrine seeks to avoid encroachment on 1st Am. freedoms, such as freedom of speech, expression, petitioning of grievances. Because vague laws cause uncertainty in the minds of average citizens, some citizens will inevitably decline to take risky behavior that might land them in jail. When the vague provisions of a state or federal statute deter citizens from engaging in certain political or religious discourse, courts will apply heightened scrutiny to ensure that protected expression is not suppressed. For example, a law that prohibits "sacrilegious" speech would simultaneously chill the freedoms of expression and religion in violation of the void for vagueness doctrine.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment