Constitutional Limits on Criminal Law and Punishments
The rule of law (principle of legality)
The government can punish individuals ONLY if there is a specific law that defines the behavior as a crime and specifies the punishment associated
Ex post facto
No laws may be passed that defines crimes AFTER the behavior it pertains to has already taken place
--to give fair warning to citizens
--to prevent biased/unfair behavior by govt
Void for vagueness doctrine
2 prong test to determine vagueness
1) notice to individuals (fails to give fair warning—reasonable persons)
2) control of officials (allows for arbitrary or
discriminatory cj administration or enforcement)
**the strong presumption of the Constitutionality of laws requires that challengers prove that the law is vague (burden of proof on the challengers)
Case: State v. Metzger
Facts:
Ordinance: “It shall be unlawful for any person within the City of Lincoln…to commit any indecent, immodest, or filthy act in the presence of any person, or in such a situation that persons passing might ordinarily see the same.”
Issue: Whether the ordinance is so vague as to be
unconstitutional?
Nebraska Supreme Court decision: reversed and dismissed (the ordinance declared invalid and thus, conviction cannot stand)
Class significance: addresses the issue of the void-for-vagueness Constitutional limitation on the implementation and enforcement of criminal statutes
Equal protection of the law
**does NOT require that the govt treats everybody exactly alike
Does not prohibit distinguishing (both for criminal designation and punishment purposes) between issues that have a “rational basis” (i.e., premeditated homicide versus negligent homicide or chronic, habitual offenders versus first-time offenders)
DOES prohibit statutes/punishments that place in jeopardy a fundamental right OR those aimed at classifying behaviors/individuals on the basis of race (subject to strict scrutiny), gender or age (heightened scrutiny)
Case: Allam v. State
Facts:
Statute: Individuals up to 18 years old are subject to criminal prosecution for possession of marijuana (17 year-olds and younger are dealt with in the juvenile system…18 year-olds in the adult criminal justice system); Individuals over the age of 18 years have NOT committed a crime.
Issue: Was the 18 year-old defendant denied equal protection under the law?
Alaska Court of Appeals decision: Affirmed!
Class significance: addresses the issue of the equal protection under the law limitation—using the age example—of the U.S. and State Constitutions on the enforcement of laws that differentiate types of punishment for different classifications of persons
The right to free speech
Fundamental right that plays a limiting role in the enactment of Federal and State laws
Five categories, according to U.S. Supreme Court, that are NOT protected by this amendment:
Obscenity
Profanity
Libel/Slander (defamation in print, verbal)
Fighting words (likely to provoke retaliation)
Clear and present danger
***The void-for-overbreadth doctrine***
limitation that invalidates laws that include not only prohibited but also protected expressions because they deny people of freedom of expression without due process of law (i.e., the “chilling effect”—people will hesitate to express or not express themselves out of fear of criminal prosecution)
Case: People v. Rockicki
Facts: hate crime—disorderly conduct
Issue: Is the Illinois hate crime statute unconstitutionally overbroad so that it would/might cause a “chilling effect?”
Hate Crime Statute: A person commits a hate crime when, by reason of the actual or perceived race, color, creed, religion, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, or national origin of another individual or group of individuals, [she or] he commits assault, battery, aggravated assault, misdemeanor theft, criminal trespass to residence…, or disorderly conduct…
Disorderly Conduct Statute: A person commits disorderly conduct when she or he knowingly “does any act in such unreasonable manner as to alarm or disturb another and to provoke a breach of the peace.”
Illinois Appellate Court decision: Affirmed!
Reasoning/significance: The hate crime statute in Illinois constitutionally regulates conduct without infringing on free speech for 3 reasons:
1) it reaches only conduct, does not punish speech itself
2) does not impermissibly discriminate based on content
3) does not chill the exercise of 1st amendment rights
The right to privacy
U.S. Supreme Court has decided that we do have a Constitutional right to privacy, which prohibits “all governmental invasions of the sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of life.”
**In most case, the Supreme Court has confined this right to activities that are part of the intimate relationships within the traditional family and home.
Case: Lawrence v. Texas
Facts: private, consensual homosexual activity
Texas Statute: A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex. The statute does go on to define what constitutes “deviate sexual intercourse.”
Case Significance Issues: Three in total:
1) whether convictions under this statute (that criminalizes sexual intimacy for same-sex couples, but not the same behavior for different-sex couples) violates the guarantee of equal protection under the law
2) whether the convictions of the 2 men in this case (for consensual sexual activity in their home) violates their right to privacy, and
3) whether Bowers (precedent on this issue) should be overruled; Bowers decision: consenting adult homosexuals had NO right to engage in sodomy in the privacy of their own homes
U.S. Supreme Court decision: Reversed and remanded!
Class Issues: stare decisis (precedent), equal protection, and right to privacy
Cruel and unusual punishments
According to U. S. Supreme Court, 2 types:
1) “barbaric”—no longer considered acceptable to a civilized society (boiling in oil, torture)
2) the principle of proportionality—punishments that are disproportionate (unequal) to the crime committed
Case: State v. Wilson; State v. Bethley
Facts: Child rape cases; one defendant HIV positive
***State appealed the case because the trial court held that the Louisiana statute was unconstitutional because the class of death-eligible defendants was not sufficiently limited.
Statute: Allows for the application of the death penalty in rape cases when the victim is under the age of 12
Issue: Is the death penalty a disproportionate punishment for a child rape crime?
Louisiana Supreme Court decision: Reversed and remanded. They reasoned that this punishment, although no death occurred in the crime, was not disproportionate to the heinous nature of child rape, therefore, the statute is not unconstitutional and the men are remanded back to trial court to be prosecuted under the Constitutionally-acceptable statute.