Void for vagueness
Encyclopedia
Void for vagueness is a legal concept in American
constitutional law
that states that a given statute is void and unenforceable if it is too vague for the average citizen to understand. There are several ways, senses or reasons a statute might be considered vague. In general, a statute might be called void for vagueness reasons when an average citizen cannot generally determine what persons are regulated, what conduct is prohibited, or what punishment may be imposed.
The following pronouncement of the void for vagueness doctrine was made in Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385 (1926) by Justice Sutherland
:
Id. 391.
. This concept is not unlimited, given that personal ignorance of the law is not generally considered to be a defense, under the doctrine of ignorantia juris non excusat
. Nevertheless, the void for vagueness doctrine is seen as protecting an individual's right to due process
, including the ability to investigate what is prohibited in a specific situation, and then to live free from fear or the chilling effect of unpredictable prosecution.
A second argument is conceived not as a personal protection, but as a limitation on the state and its ability to initiate criminal prosecutions. If penal statutes are overly vague, it is argued that the state's discretion to prosecute becomes too broad, and potentially subject to abuse through selective enforcement
.
One criticism of the doctrine is that there is an inherent indeterminacy in every law, so attempting to eliminate them is folly and only leads to more problems. Another criticism might be that vague laws are actually good, that they allow the judge or jury to apply a single law in a number of situations unanticipated by the legislature.
These might be answered by responding, on the first hand, that the doctrine does not attempt to eliminate ambiguity altogether, but only so far as an average man, in an average situation, might understand the meaning. To the second criticism it might be responded that, indeed, laws should not be impossibly narrow, but in a system that presumes both liberty and innocence, such broad laws as those suggested by that criticism would be undesirable as they would catch in their net many innocent citizens.
United States
The United States of America is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district...
constitutional law
Constitutional law
Constitutional law is the body of law which defines the relationship of different entities within a state, namely, the executive, the legislature and the judiciary....
that states that a given statute is void and unenforceable if it is too vague for the average citizen to understand. There are several ways, senses or reasons a statute might be considered vague. In general, a statute might be called void for vagueness reasons when an average citizen cannot generally determine what persons are regulated, what conduct is prohibited, or what punishment may be imposed.
Roots
In the case of vagueness, a statute might be considered void on constitutional grounds. Specifically, roots of the void for vagueness extend into the two due process clauses, one in the fifth and one in the fourteenth amendment to the constitution. The courts have generally determined that vague laws deprive citizens of their rights without fair process, thus violating due process.The following pronouncement of the void for vagueness doctrine was made in Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385 (1926) by Justice Sutherland
George Sutherland
Alexander George Sutherland was an English-born U.S. jurist and political figure. One of four appointments to the Supreme Court by President Warren G. Harding, he served as an Associate Justice of the U.S...
:
Id. 391.
Specific application
There are at least two ways a law might be attacked for being unconstitutionally vague:- When a law does not specifically enumerate the practices that are either required or prohibited. In this case, the ordinary citizen does not know what the law requires.
- When a law does not specifically detail the procedure followed by officers or judges of the law. As a guard, a law must particularly detail what officers are to do, providing both for what they must do and what they must not do. Judges must, under the doctrine, have a clear understanding of how they are to approach and handle a case.
Theoretical basis
A number of arguments are presented in favor of the void for vagueness doctrine. The most basic is as expressed by Justice Sutherland: that an individual should not face punishment for violating the law, unless the nature of the prohibited conduct can be understood by a reasonable personReasonable person
The reasonable person is a legal fiction of the common law that represents an objective standard against which any individual's conduct can be measured...
. This concept is not unlimited, given that personal ignorance of the law is not generally considered to be a defense, under the doctrine of ignorantia juris non excusat
Ignorantia juris non excusat
Ignorantia juris non excusat or ignorantia legis neminem excusat is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because he or she was unaware of its content...
. Nevertheless, the void for vagueness doctrine is seen as protecting an individual's right to due process
Due process
Due process is the legal code that the state must venerate all of the legal rights that are owed to a person under the principle. Due process balances the power of the state law of the land and thus protects individual persons from it...
, including the ability to investigate what is prohibited in a specific situation, and then to live free from fear or the chilling effect of unpredictable prosecution.
A second argument is conceived not as a personal protection, but as a limitation on the state and its ability to initiate criminal prosecutions. If penal statutes are overly vague, it is argued that the state's discretion to prosecute becomes too broad, and potentially subject to abuse through selective enforcement
Selective enforcement
Selective enforcement is the ability that executors of the law have to arbitrarily select choice individuals as being outside of the law...
.
One criticism of the doctrine is that there is an inherent indeterminacy in every law, so attempting to eliminate them is folly and only leads to more problems. Another criticism might be that vague laws are actually good, that they allow the judge or jury to apply a single law in a number of situations unanticipated by the legislature.
These might be answered by responding, on the first hand, that the doctrine does not attempt to eliminate ambiguity altogether, but only so far as an average man, in an average situation, might understand the meaning. To the second criticism it might be responded that, indeed, laws should not be impossibly narrow, but in a system that presumes both liberty and innocence, such broad laws as those suggested by that criticism would be undesirable as they would catch in their net many innocent citizens.