Vagueness in law refers to the laws that lack precision and do not give sufficient guidance in legal proceedings, or Citizens are unable to clearly understand the persons regulated, what conduct the law prohibits and generally the punishment it imposes. The doctrine of vagueness is therefore a constitutional imperative that requires criminal laws to state clearly and categorically what conduct is punishable. It is a ground in which a statute or any other criminal law can be rendered void.
Legal vagueness is a constitutional doctrine that forms the basis of most constitutions globally, and especially on matters relating to criminal law (Waldron, 1994). Its significance in criminal law is attached to the uniquely grave and detrimental consequences on the rights and freedoms of an individual. Individuals who break the law that is clearly prohibited in criminal law may have to surrender their rights and freedoms that are granted to them by the same law.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In the United States Constitution, this doctrine of vagueness is anchored on the due process clauses of the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments. It requires that a fair notice is given of what is punishable by law and what is not punishable by law. Laying it bear is very essential in administration of criminal justice as that will seek to prevent arbitrary enforcement of the laws on individuals accused of breaking such laws.
There are a few ways a law may get checked for being unconstitutionally vague. This happens when the law negates its specific application. They include:
The circumstances when a law fails to detail the procedure that assists other law makers other than members of the legislature. To prevent such, a specific law should give the specific details those officers need to do, highlighting the extent they should go and the extent they should not go. There must be a clear approach to any piece of the legislature; and
Circumstances when that particular statutes and law fails to enumerate all the practices that are needed and prohibited; this means that the general public does not understand what the law requires.
This constitutional doctrine of vagueness is very critical in checking legislation that is done by other bodies other than parliament (Ditta, 2010). This is an aspect of delegated legislation. Statutes and all other laws, especially criminal laws can easily be voided as a result of vagueness if the delegation of authority by parliament to the executive and the courts is found to be extremely extensive, in that it would naturally lead to arbitrary prosecutions. In Kolender v Lawson, the State of California had enacted a statute that demanded that people who wander or loiter out in the streets should provide “reliable and credible” identification to a police officer whenever requested, especially when that police officer reasonably suspects criminal activity. The words “credible and reliable” had been given a meaning of “carrying reasonable assurance that authenticates the identification materials and gives a means of the authorities reaching them”. The appeals court held that the statute as construed by the Court is unconstitutionally vague prima facie and within the understanding of the due process Clause as captured in the Fourteenth Amendment. The court opined, vagueness gives police officers absolute discretion to determine if the suspect meets the provision of the statute and would always tilt it on their favor whenever they find no cause to arrest.
For laws to be constitutional, the aspect of vagueness must not be inferred. This therefore calls for all law makers to ensure that they clearly state what the law mandates and what is enforceable in that law. It also requires that law makers ensure that potentially vague words are plainly defined. In Coates v City of Cincinnati, a law that criminalized two and more persons to publicly assemble on a sidewalk and carry behave in a way that can cause annoyance to the individuals using it was enacted. The appellant in the case, a student, was part of a protest in a dispute about work. They were arrested and charged on the grounds of disregarding an ordinance in Cincinnati, that made criminalized two and more persons to gather on any part of the public sidewalks and carry behave in a way that will annoy those passing. The Supreme Court held that the law was unconstitutionally vague since it subjected individual’s constitutional right of congregation to an unascertainable normal which was unconstitutionally expansive since it necessitated the castigation of conduct enshrined and sheltered by the constitution. The court in their ruling opined that behavior that annoyed some individuals could not necessarily annoy other individuals. That would mean that the meaning of the standard of conduct was put into guess work. The court while appreciating that the city may have had the discretion to prevent lawless conduct on the sidewalks, it needed to have given reasonable specificity on the type of conduct they prohibited. The court thus found that the ordinance was an unconstitutional restriction of Fourteenth as well as First Amendment right of persons to congregate.
Skilling v United States, dealt with vagueness in the “Mail Fraud Statute”. The statute made use of the phrase “Scheme or artifice to defraud” which it gave a meaning to include a scheme, or artifice to deny someone else of “the intangible right of honest services”. Courts struggled to clearly understand what the words used in the Statute, “protecting the intangible rights” meant. This led the American congress to enact another Statute, 1346 that was aimed at correcting the previous existing Statute but ended up causing more confusion. Skilling went to court to have the statute declared unconstitutional for vagueness, and the courts decided in his favor affirming that statute 1346 was unconstitutionally vague. Nevertheless, the courts chose to limit the scope of the statute rather than voiding it as a whole. The words honest services fraud were given a new meaning that strictly included kickbacks schemes and bribery, and removed the previous corporation actions that included nondisclosure of a conflict of interest and general self-dealing.
The concept of unconstitutional vagueness is another essential facet of the doctrine of vagueness. This concept is commonly used remove laws and judicial actions in the lower courts. It developed from the doctrine of due process contained in the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments in the Constitution of the United States of America. It restricts criminal prosecution of individuals on the grounds that they could not clearly understand the type of conduct that is prohibited under the law. The courts would render such laws that fall in this category to be unconstitutionally vague, since the words used are not defined elsewhere in the law (Hessick, 2016).
In Franklin v State, the Supreme Court struck down a law on sodomy on the grounds of being unconstitutionally vague and ambiguity in its language occasioning a violation in the constitutional due process to the defendants. Two men, Alva and Stephen got arrested after committing a crime not in favor of nature in a parked car. The police then arrested and charged them with a felony, a crime that was punishable by a jail term of up to 20 years in violation of a Florida statute read,: “whoever commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature, either with mankind or with beast, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison not exceeding twenty years”. The court while rendering its judgment preserved the exclusion on sodomy by deciding, oral and anal sex be prosecuted in the lesser charge of perverted and lewd behavior, therefore dropping the offense of felony to a misdemeanor.
References
Ditta, F. D. (2010). Leading the Way in Unconstitutional Delegations of Legislative Power: Statutory Incorporation of the LEED Rating System. Hofstra L. Rev. , 39 , 369.
Hessick, C. B. (2016). Vagueness principles. Ariz. St. LJ , 48 , 1137.
Waldron, J. (1994). Vagueness in law and language: Some philosophical issues. Cal L. Rev. , 82 , 509.
