Criminal Law CJ 220 Chapter 2

1
Criminal Law CJ 220 Chapter 2

• Constitutional Limits on Criminal Law
• Andrew Fulkerson, JD, PhD
• Southeast Missouri State University

2
Constitutional Limits on Criminal Law

• Background ideology of framers of Constitution
• Suspicious of powerful government
• Believed in rights of individuals
• Freedom depends upon order
• Order depends upon control
• Constitution balances power of government with
  liberty of citizens

3
Constitutional Limits

• Constitutional democracy
• Not a pure democracy-majority does not have
  absolute power
• Constitution limits power to create crimes and
  fix punishment

4
Constitutional Limits

• The Rule of Law
• Government can punish only if-
• Law must define the crime
• Law must establish the punishment for violations

5
Constitutional Limits

• Challenging Constitutionality of a law is
  difficult.
• Courts are sensitive to the will of the people
• Burden of proof in challenging Constitutionality
  of a law is on the challenger. There is a legal
  presumption that a law is valid.
• Justice Holmes described Constitutional arguments
  as arguments of the law resort for lawyers.

6
Constitutional Limits

• Ex Post Facto Laws
• Law that punishes a crime that is not defined
  until after conduct occurs.
• Article I, Section 9 of U.S. Constitution
  provides that no state shall pass any ex post
  facto laws.

7
Constitutional Limits

• Purpose of prohibition against ex post facto
  laws
• Give fair warning to private individuals
• Prevent arbitrary action by government officials

8
Constitutional Limits

• Void for Vagueness Doctrine
• Vague laws fail to warn persons, and allow
  arbitrary action by government
• Similar to ex post facto laws in this failure to
  provide adequate warning.
• Vague laws violate due process.

9
Constitutional Limits

• Reasoning for void for vagueness doctrine
• Criminal punishment involves deprivation of life,
  liberty or property
• Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit federal
  and state governments from taking life, liberty
  or property without due process of law.
• Failure to adequately warn persons what law
  prohibits, or allowing government to define or
  enforce such a law denies persons of life,
  liberty or property without due process of law.

10
Constitutional Limits

• Two-pronged test for void for vagueness.
• 1. Does law provide fair warning as to what law
  prohibits?
• Directed at individuals
• 2. Does law prevent arbitrary and
  discriminatory administration of justice?
• Directed at government

11
Constitutional Limits

• State v. Metzger, 319 N.W. 2d 459 (Neb. 1982)

12
Standards of Review
Type of Case Standard State Interest
Police Power (most cases) Rational Basis Legitimate State Interest
1. Fundamental Rights 2. Race Strict Scrutiny Compelling
13
Equal Protection of the Laws

• Last resort of constitutional arguments

14
Equal Protection of the Laws

• 14th Amendment no state shall deny any
  persons the equal protection of the laws.
• But it does allow classifications which have a
  rational basis.
• Arbitrary classifications are not permitted.

15
Equal Protection of the Laws

• Strict scrutiny test must meet a compelling
  state interest
• Race-based classifications are subject to strict
  scrutiny and never upheld.
• Gender-based classifications must have a fair
  and substantial relationship to legitimate state
  goals.

16
Free Speech

• First Amendment Congress shall make no law
  ...abridging the freedom of speech. Supreme
  Court has interpreted this to include expressive
  conduct.
• Expressive conduct means actions that communicate
  ideas and feelings.

17
Free Speech

• Speech is fundamental right giving it a preferred
  status.
• To restrict free speech, government must show
  more than a rational basis to support the
  restriction.
• It must show a compelling interest, a much higher
  burden of proof.

18
Free Speech

• . Supreme Court has recognized five categories
  of speech that are not protected
• Obscenity
• Profanity
• Libel
• Fighting words
• Expression that creates a clear and present
  danger of an evil that legislature has right to
  prohibit.

19
Free Speech

• Difficulty in regulating speech is
• Laws may often be overly broad
• May touch on protected forms of expression.
• May violate the void-for-overbreadth doctrine.

20
Free Speech

• Chilling effect on fundamental right to
  expression violates right to liberty guaranteed
  by 5th and 14th Amendments.

21
Free Speech

• People v. Rokicki, 307 Ill.App. 3d 645, 718
  N.E.2d 333 (Ill. App. 1999

22
Free Speech

• Nude Dancing
• Barnes v. Glenn Theatre, Inc., 5011 U.S. 560
  (1991)

23
Free Speech

• Flag Burning
• Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)

24
Free Speech and Schools

• Morse, et al v. Frederick, No. 06-278. Argued
  March 19, 2007--Decided June 25, 2007
• http//caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgibin/getcase.pl?co
  urtUSnavbycasevol000invol06-278

25
Criminal Law CJ 220 Chapter 2

• Constitutional Limits on Criminal Law
• Andrew Fulkerson, JD, PhD
• Southeast Missouri State University

26
Right to Privacy

• Not specifically included in Constitution or
  Amendments.
• US Supreme Court has ruled that right of privacy
  is found in 6 amendments to Constitution
• 1st Amendment prohibits laws that infringe on
  free expression, association and belief.
• 3d Amendment prohibits quartering soldiers in
  private homes
• 4th Amendment protects right to be secure in
  ones person, house, papers and effects.
• 9th Amendment provides that listing of certain
  rights in Constitution shall not be construed to
  deny other rights.
• 5th and 14th Amendments prohibit denial of
  liberty without due process of law.

27
Right to Privacy

• Right to privacy prohibits government from
  invading the sanctity of ones home and privacies
  of life.
• It is a fundamental right.
• Government must show a compelling state
  interest to justify invading the right.
• Right to be let alone by government.

28
Right to Privacy

• Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 506

29
Right to Privacy

• Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969)

30
Right to Privacy

• Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 86 (1986)

31
Right to Privacy

• Lawrence et al v. Texas, 123 S.Ct. 2472 (2003)

32
Cruel and unusual punishments

• 8th Amendment
• excessive fines shall not be imposed and cruel
  and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted.

33
Cruel and unusual punishments

• Supreme Court has ruled that the following are
  cruel and unsuual.
• Barbaric punishments
• Punishments that are disproportionate to the
  crime committed.

34
Cruel and unusual punishments

• Court ruled that method of administering death
  penalty should not do more than extinguish
  life.
• Beheading cruel because it mutilates the body.
• Death should be instantaneous and painless.

35
Proportionality

• Magna Carta 1215,
• Prohibited excessive fines.
• Imprisonment was not even a form of punishment at
  that time.

36
Proportionality

• US Supreme Court first questioned the
  proportionality of a sentence in Weems v. United
  States, (1910)
• Weems convicted of falsifying a document and
  sentenced to 15 years at hard labor in chains.
• Supreme Court ruled it was cruel and unusual
  because the sentence was disproportionate to the
  crime.

37
Proportionality

• State v. Wilson, 685 So.2d 1063 (La. 1996)

38
Proportionality

• Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003)