Law Void for Vagueness

An implicit limitation on due process, which does not require the impossible, also helps explain a case of “vagueness” that is difficult to explain for reasons of simple vagueness: Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville. In that case, the court struck down a vagabond settlement that provided the following [51]. Davis, 139 pp. ct. at 2323, 2325; Dimaya, 138 p. ct., p. 1212 (majority opinion) (“[T]he doctrine [of absence for vagueness] is a logical consequence of the separation of powers – it requires Congress, not the executive or judiciary, to define what conduct is punishable and what is not.”); Dimaya, 138 p. ct. at 1227–28 (Gorsuch, J., partially agree and agree in judgment). In summary, legal defences raise few, if any, concerns about arbitrary and discriminatory application by police, judges, jurors and prosecutors. Police and prosecutors (subpoenas) are unlikely to consider the defense in their initial legal actions (such as arrests and charges). Judges, jurors and prosecutors (after the indictment) do not apply the defense against the accused – a necessary factor in this analysis of vagueness.

Therefore, the doctrine of nullity for vagueness is not necessary to reduce the risk of arbitrary and discriminatory application when it comes to legal defences. This finding supports the position in this note that vagueness issues are inappropriate when applied to legal defences. Another problem with the vacuum doctrine for vagueness is its under-inclusiveness. Here, too, the doctrine is based on the twin grounds of requiring fair notification of potential actors and minimizing discretion and thus the possibility of arbitrariness and discrimination against police, prosecutors, judges and juries. However, other features of laws may lead to the same problems of lack of notification and, in particular, abusive delegation as those that are vague, yet these laws have not been considered constitutionally problematic. Of course, constitutional doctrine does not have to address all problems at once. First, if the absence of notification or improper delegation may lead to a denial of due process, it is better to nullify these evils arising from vague laws, even if other constitutional doctrines have not developed to deal with other cases of such evils. The problem here is that if the evil is a lack of notification or inappropriate delegation, the vagueness of a law is almost incidental. Since these problems can arise from a large number of legal loopholes, it seems arbitrary to distinguish those that are vaguely worded.

I confess that I have always thought about it. To revolt meant to rid oneself of all obedience to the Lord; to take possession of the vessel by force from the crew; to navigate them themselves or to transfer command to another person on board. But although this is always my opinion, I am not in a position to support it by any authority that one might meet, neither in general, nor in admiralty, nor in civil law. If we return to the definitions of philologists, they are so diverse and so different that I cannot help but feel a natural reluctance to choose from this mass of definitions that which can accuse these men of a crime, and that of a capitalist nature. [160] These examples were no doubt familiar to early American commentators and jurists, who often repeated the importance of clarity in criminal laws. James Madison, in Federalist No. 62, warns of the “catastrophic” consequences of laws “so inconsistent they cannot be understood.” In a first case before the Federal Court, United States v. Sharp (1815), the court held that laws which “create a crime should be so explicit in themselves or by reference to another standard that all persons subject to their penalties may know what acts are their duty to avoid.” Even though the Iowa Supreme Court expanded the doctrine in this way, the Iowa District Court in Wilson was always wrong. The U.S. Constitution provides a lower limit for individual rights.249 Currently, the U.S. Constitution sets the following lower bound: The doctrine of nullity for vagueness benefits defendants.250 If Iowa courts extended the doctrine of nullity for vagueness of the Iowa Constitution to obtain legal objections, the Iowa Constitution would provide fewer protections for individuals than those currently provided for in the U.S.

Constitution.251 Individuals would still be entitled to the minimum protection offered by the United States. The Iowa Constitution and courts must respect this protection.252 Therefore, to avoid violating federal rights, the Wilson District Court had to apply the U.S. Constitution`s ground—which the vagueness doctrine assists defendants—in refusing to remove Section 704.13 from the doctrine. By doing the exact opposite, the Iowa District Court violated the due process guarantee of the U.S. Constitution. [148]. Id. (“[T]he Court stated that “the degree of vagueness permitted by the Constitution depends in part on the nature of the decree”: in particular, the Court “expressed greater tolerance for decrees involving civil than criminal penalties, because the consequences of vagueness are qualitatively less severe.” (second and third amendments in original) (cited Vill. de Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S.

489, 498–99 (1982))). In summary, the doctrine of nullity for vagueness is not an appropriate remedy for ambiguous legal objections. The extension of the doctrine of invalidity for vagueness to legal defences violates due process and fair notice, while raising few, if any, concerns about the arbitrary and discriminatory application of the law. In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has shown a renewed willingness to consider vague challenges to legislation. However, it “failed to set a binding precedent for future tribunals on how the doctrine of vagueness should (or not) be expanded in the future. 258 In deciding future challenges to indeterminacy, the United States Supreme Court, like the Iowa Supreme Court, must ensure that it clearly sets out the scope of the doctrine of nullity on the ground of vagueness, so that it clearly does not extend to legal defences. Without clear guidelines, the U.S. justice system risks aggressively expanding the vacuum doctrine for vagueness.

If legal objections are victims of such extensions, individual rights are violated, which is directly contrary to due process. This passage has proved confusing for generations of jurists. [336] This is because Blackstone appears to contradict himself,[337] first stating that certain “collateral consequences” of certain statutes may render the law “null and void,” and then stating that such “unreasonable” “ancillary” “ancillary effects” provide judges with a basis for narrowly interpreting the law, but not for striking it out generally. Another North Carolina case, State v. Boon,[195] was also about an ambiguous law, this time with three possible meanings instead of two. Moreover, although the court purported to strike down the law, it actually chose the narrowest of the three meanings consistent with the mile rule. The accused was accused of killing a slave. [196] The relevant law provided that “if any person is subsequently guilty of the intentional and malicious murder of a slave, that perpetrator shall be convicted upon first conviction of murder and shall receive the same punishment as if he had killed a free man.” [197] The Court found the law ambiguous because the “murder of a free man” could have three different consequences: it could be murder, punishable by death; it could be manslaughter, which is also punishable by death, but in favour of the clergy (meaning that the perpetrator is spared and instead serves a prison sentence); Or it could be justified or excusable murder that was not punishable at all.

[198] Since the Court could have agreed by law for either of these three, it stated that “no judgment can be rendered.” [199] However, the Court did not strike down the law for vagueness. On the contrary, the Court interpreted the law as narrowly as possible – that is, it provides the same penalty for the “intentional and malicious murder of a slave” as for the justified or excusable murder of a free man, meaning that there is no punishment at all. [200] In fact, three of the four judges who issued opinions in this case explicitly cited the Mile Rule as an excuse for interpreting the law as narrowly as possible. [201] In light of these principles of due process, this section explains why the doctrine of vagueness is not an appropriate remedy for ambiguous legal defences.

This entry was posted on 29th October 2022. Bookmark the permalink.