Overbreadth holds that a law is invalid if it penalizes constitutionally protected speech or behavior along with speech or conduct that the government may limit to further a compelling government interest. (Hall, 2014) Vagueness is a due process of law with regards to any criminal and civil statutes of uncertain that do not provide notice of the conduct prohibited to what penalty may be imposed that may affect a person which implies in the area of expression.
Vagueness addresses the unfairness of criminal punishment on an individual who is unaware that such conduct is prohibited. The vagueness statutes have the effect of the unconstitutional definition of what is criminal. The vagueness statutes encourage peremptory and discriminatory enforcement
…show more content…
(Takarev, 2012) “Laws which prohibit the actions of things, and provide a penalty for an individual violation, should have no double meaning. An individual should not unnecessarily be responsible, for an honest error in the construction of a penal statute, that a statute and an ordinance violation may be subjected to a prosecution” (Goldsmith, 2003). Every person should be able to know with certainty when they are committing a crime. The government must provide information to the public to achieve its goal that is not overly broad. The United States Supreme Court has developed guidelines for judicial review for claims that constitutional rights are have been violated. (Hall, 2014)
(References)
Goldsmith, A. E. (2003). The void-for-vagueness doctrine in the Supreme Court revisited. American Journal of Criminal Law, 30(2), 279-313. Retrieved August 18, 2017, from https://bethelu.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.bethelu.idm.oclc.org/docview/206265253?accountid=56725
Hall, D. E. (2014). Criminal Law and Procedure, 7th Edition: Cengage Learning. Retrieved August 18, 2017, from https://www.betheluniversityonline.net/cps/default.aspx?SectionID=5980&tabid=154
Takarev, S. (2012). Vagueness and Overbreadth in Criminal Statues. Retrieved August 18, 2017, from
Seigal, L. J., & Worrall, J. L. (2012). Introduction to criminal justice (13th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
The Supreme Court developed the laws governing Victim Impact Statements based on what they thought was a constitutional conflict where the punishment may be enhanced when a statement made by the victim or family may have more of an impact on the sentencing authority than the severity of the crime (Stevens 2000). Or that the victim impact statement may draw the juries attention away from the evidence at hand and the case being decided through emotional not evidence based means. The Eighth Amendment requires that no excessive bail be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments be inflicted.
Justice Jackson's disagreement on the ruling of the Terminiello case is supported by many historical examples which demonstrate that freedom of speech is not an absolute right under the law. Although Terminiello had a right to exercise his right under the First Amendment, had the majority carefully considered this principle it should have rejected his claim. In this case, the majority's treatment of Terminiello's case skirted the real issue and did not benefit from true constitutional interpretation.
Attempt by Congress to strike a balance between society's need for protection from crime and accused right to adequate proce...
...constitutional values. Even though categories can be applied without referencing the underlying principles, the establishment and rationalization of these categories rely heavily upon those values. Otherwise, the legitimacy and stability of the constitution can be undermined. Furthermore, both acknowledge that words that can result in harmful actions, such as yelling “Fire!” in public, do not have immunity from regulation. Even the devoted absolutist Justice Black was flexible when it comes to outlining the borders around “speech” He did not give all speech-like acts complete protection and was quick to classify speech acts that are out of bounds of the First Amendment. (1)
In Supreme Court cases, it is difficult to determine which side the judges will rule because the cases are often very controversial. The Constitution and one’s rights need to be protected, and if it goes against the Constitution, the consequences will not be agreed upon. As a result, in Holmes’ analysis, it ultimately brings to light the importance of results often being black and white, but they truly aren’t. The public still has a long way to go in not only understanding the law, but also the reasons why judges make these different decisions. But the most important thing is that the U.S. Constitution is always followed.
... but there must also be some indication in the legislation, its purpose and context showing this intention. The courts’ duty is to ensure that the legislative target is hit and not merely to record that it has been missed, but it must also be careful not to trespass on the separation of powers. If a gap is disclosed in the legislation, the remedy lies in amending the Act.
... was instrumental to recognition of the constitutional right to privacy and the interpretation of the Ninth Amendment. This case shows that the Constitution is a living document that can be maneuvered to accommodate for the adaption of American peoples. While it is a stationary and unchanging document, unique interpretations can be gleamed.
Schmalleger, Frank, Criminal Justice A Brief Introduction, Upper Saddle River, NJ, Pearson Education Inc. , 2010, Page 387
Today, we take such freedoms as the right to privacy and freedom of speech for granted. Our freedoms are not absolute, without limitations. Thus, when it comes to these freedoms, it is up to the Supreme Court to determine what the government can and cannot regulate. Because courts continually rule on what actions are constitutional and what is not, judicial interpretation shapes the nature of civil liberties. “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” (Voltaire)
As the case in Illinois clearly demonstrates, concerns about the fundamental discrepancy between a government's authority and what that government's authority guarantees are still being resolved. Cases like Tinker still have meaning and relevance to the situations of today, but at the same time, the lesson of Slotterback and innumerable other cases is that precedent can be defied, that every new generation requires a new interpretation of the provisions and guarantees made in grand terms vague enough to allow just such reinterpretation. History shows that censorship can be unfolded into either prior restraint or public forum, the approach from liberty or the approach from authority. Judicial sympathies have swung from one to the other with some regularity. With an issue as contentious as this, we can safely expect they will continue to do so.
...er than the fourth amendment. These amendments were not created to tell us our rights; they were created to tell the officers what they can and cannot do when enforcing the law.
Roberson, C., Wallace, H., & Stuckey, G. B. (2013). Procedures in the justice system (1st ed.). [Vitalsource or Kaplan University]. Retrieved from https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781269223119/pages/76743177
Davenport, A.U. (2009). Basic criminal law: the constitution, procedure, and crimes (2nd ed).Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice.
Legal Information Institute. (2010, August 9). Retrieved February 17, 2012, from Cornell University Law School: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/criminal_law