CCJS230 Chapter 2 Constitutional Limits on Criminal Law Constitutional Democracy the majority can t make a crime out of conduct protected by the fundamental rights in the U S Constitution Pure Democracy the majority can have whatever it wants Rule of Law the idea that government power should be defined and limited by laws The Principle of Legality Principle of Legality no one can be convicted of or punished for a crime unless the law defined the crime and prescribed the punishment before the person engaged in the behavior that was defined as a crime Knowing what the law commands provides individuals with the opportunity to obey the law and avoid punishment Providing individuals with this opportunity promotes the value of human autonomy and dignity The ban on retroactive criminal lawmaking also prevents officials from punishing conduct they think is wrong but which no existing criminal law prohibits The Ban on Ex Post Facto Laws A retroactive law that does one of three things 1 2 3 It criminalizes an act that wasn t a crime when it was committed It increases the punishment for a crime after the crime was committed the ban doesn t apply to reductions in punishment So for example there s no ban on reducing the punishment for possessing marijuana from one year in prison to a fine It takes away a defense that was available to a defendant when the crime was committed To protect private individuals by ensuring that legislatures give them fair warning about what s criminal and that they can rely on that requirement Preventing legislators from passing arbitrary and vindictive laws arbitrary means legislation is based on random choice or personal whim not on reason and standards Major Purposes The Void for Vagueness Doctrine Void for Vagueness Doctrine the principle that statutes violate due process if they don t define a crime and its punishment clearly enough for ordinary people to know what is lawful Vague laws violate due process guarantees The 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution ban both federal and state governments from taking any person s life liberty or property without due process of law Criminal punishment deprives individuals of life capital punishment liberty imprisonment or property fines Failure to warn private persons of what the law forbids and or allowing officials the chance to define arbitrarily what the law forbids denies individuals of their life liberty and or property without the due process of law Fair Notice in ex post facto laws it isn t whether the defendant knows there s a law against the act but whether an ordinary reasonable person would know that the act is a crime 319 N W 2d 459 Neb 1982 State v Metzger Prior History Appeal from the District Court for Lancaster County Bernard J McGinn Judge Facts Defendant sought review of the Judgement of the Disctrict Court for the convicted defendant of violating the Lincoln Municipal Code for indecent exposure because of standing in front of his apartment window naked Lincoln Municipal Code unlawful for anyone to commit any indecent immodest or filthy act Claimed that standing in the nude was a form of free expression guaranteed by the Constitution Court decided that it didn t need to decide whether nudity was constitutionally guaranteed because the court found the statute vague as to be constitutional Court found that the act was immodest but did not necessarily make it illegal Reversed and dismissed the defendants conviction Equal Protection of the Laws Equal Protection of the Law a constitutional command that criminal laws can treat groups of people and types of conduct differently only if the different treatment is reasonable Limits it puts on lawmaking and punishment Doesn t require the government to treat everybody exactly alike ex premeditated murder has larger punishment than negligent homicides Classifications in criminal codes are based on race violates the Constitution The Bill of Rights and the Criminal Law Free Speech Speech doesn t just include spoken or written word but now expressive conduct Expressive conduct nonverbal actions that communicate ideas and feelings Government has to provide more than a rational basis for restricting speech and other forms of expression Five categories of expression not protected by the 1st Amendment o Obscenity Material whose predominant appeal is to nudity sexual activity or excretion o Profanity Irreverence toward sacred things particularly in the name of God o Libel and Slander Libels are damage to reputation expressed in print writing pictures or signs slander damages reputation by spoken words o Fighting Words Words that are likely to provoke the average person to retaliation and cause a breach of speech o Clear and Present danger Expression that creates a clear and present danger of an evil which legislatures have the power to prohibit o The 1st Amendment does not protect these forms of expression because they are not an essential element of any exposition of ideas and are of such slight value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality s Void for overbreadth doctrine protects speech guaranteed by the 1st Amendment by invalidating laws written so broadly that the fear of prosecution creates a chilling effect that discourages people from exercising that freedom People v Rokicki 718 N E 2d 333 Ill App 1999 o Appeal from the Circuit Court of Kane County Judge Honorable James T Doyle presiding o Defendant appealed Circuit Court of Kane County s conviction for a hate crime under 720 Ill Comp Stat based on the predicate offense of disorderly conduct o Facts Defendant yelled pounded his fists on the counter and called victim epithets at a restaurant where the victim worked He was arrested for disorderly conduct and charged with a hate crime o Allowed to believe what he wanted but he cannot force his opinions on others by shouting pounding on the counter and disrupting a lawful business o Hate crime statute was not unconstitutional when the predicate offense was disorderly conduct because it reached only conduct and did not punish speech itself and did not impermissibly discriminate based on content and did not chill the exercise of first amendment rights affirmed The Right to Bear Arms Second Amendment the right of law abiding responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home GeorgiaCarry Org Inc v Georgia 2011 764 F Supp 2d 1306 M D Ga 2011 o Affirmed by