-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
/
s07-02-the-due-process-and-equal-prot.html
124 lines (108 loc) · 19 KB
/
s07-02-the-due-process-and-equal-prot.html
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta charset="UTF-8">
<link href="shared/bookhub.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css">
<title>The Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses</title>
</head>
<body>
<div id=navbar-top class="navbar">
<div class="navbar-part left">
<a href="s07-01-applicability-of-the-constitut.html"><img src="shared/images/batch-left.png"></a> <a href="s07-01-applicability-of-the-constitut.html">Previous Section</a>
</div>
<div class="navbar-part middle">
<a href="index.html"><img src="shared/images/batch-up.png"></a> <a href="index.html">Table of Contents</a>
</div>
<div class="navbar-part right">
<a href="s07-03-freedom-of-speech.html">Next Section</a> <a href="s07-03-freedom-of-speech.html"><img src="shared/images/batch-right.png"></a>
</div>
</div>
<div id="book-content">
<div class="section" id="storm_1.0-ch03_s02" condition="start-of-chunk" version="5.0" lang="en">
<h2 class="title editable block">
<span class="title-prefix">3.2</span> The Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses</h2>
<div class="learning_objectives editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch03_s02_n01">
<h3 class="title">Learning Objectives</h3>
<ol class="orderedlist" id="storm_1.0-ch03_s02_l01">
<li>Define the Bill of Rights.</li>
<li>Define the principle of selective incorporation.</li>
<li>Distinguish between substantive and procedural due process.</li>
<li>Compare void for vagueness and overbreadth.</li>
<li>Ascertain the purpose of the equal protection clause as it applies to criminal laws.</li>
</ol>
</div>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch03_s02_p01">Although the legislative branch’s prohibited powers are in Article I of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights contains most of the constitutional protections afforded to criminal defendants. The <span class="margin_term"><a class="glossterm">Bill of Rights</a><span class="glossdef">The first ten amendments to the Constitution.</span></span> is the first ten amendments to the Constitution. In addition, the Fourteenth Amendment, which was added to the Constitution after the Civil War, has a plethora of protections for criminal defendants in the due process and equal protection clauses.</p>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch03_s02_p02">The Bill of Rights was originally written to apply to the federal government. However, US Supreme Court precedent has held that <em class="emphasis">any</em> constitutional amendment that is implicit to due process’s concept of ordered liberty must be incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections and applied to the states.<span class="footnote" id="storm_1.0-fn03_003"><em class="emphasis">Duncan v. Louisiana</em>, 391 U.S. 145 (1968), accessed October 20, 2010, <a class="link" target="_blank" href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=391&invol=145">http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=391&invol=145</a>.</span> This doctrine is called <span class="margin_term"><a class="glossterm">selective incorporation</a><span class="glossdef">Applying the Bill of Rights’ constitutional protections to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.</span></span>, and it includes virtually all the constitutional protections in the Bill of Rights. Thus although the original focus of the Bill of Rights may have been limiting the federal government, modern interpretations of the Constitution ensure that its protections also extend to all levels of state and local government.</p>
<div class="section" id="storm_1.0-ch03_s02_s01">
<h2 class="title editable block">The Meaning of Due Process of Law</h2>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch03_s02_s01_p01">The <span class="margin_term"><a class="glossterm">due process clause</a><span class="glossdef">A clause in the Fifth Amendment (which applies to the federal government) and the Fourteenth Amendment (which applies to the state government) providing that no individual will be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.</span></span> states, “No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The due process clause in the Fifth Amendment applies to <em class="emphasis">federal</em> crimes and federal criminal prosecutions. The federal due process clause is mirrored in the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees due process of law in <em class="emphasis">state</em> criminal prosecutions. Most states have a similar provision in their constitutions.<span class="footnote" id="storm_1.0-fn03_004">Missouri Constitution, art. I, § 10, accessed October 10, 2010, <a class="link" target="_blank" href="http://www.sos.mo.gov/pubs/missouri_constitution.pdf">http://www.sos.mo.gov/pubs/missouri_constitution.pdf</a>.</span></p>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch03_s02_s01_p02"><span class="margin_term"><a class="glossterm">Substantive due process</a><span class="glossdef">The government cannot unreasonably encroach on an individual’s substantive constitutional rights.</span></span> protects individuals from an unreasonable loss of substantive rights, such as the right to speak freely and the right to privacy. <span class="margin_term"><a class="glossterm">Procedural due process</a><span class="glossdef">The government cannot criminally punish individuals without providing notice and an opportunity to be heard.</span></span> protects individuals from being criminally punished without notice and an opportunity to be heard. Both substantive and procedural due processes ensure that individuals are not denied their life (capital punishment), liberty (incarceration), or property (forfeiture) <em class="emphasis">arbitrarily</em>.</p>
<div class="section" id="storm_1.0-ch03_s02_s01_s01">
<h2 class="title editable block">Void for Vagueness</h2>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch03_s02_s01_s01_p01"><span class="margin_term"><a class="glossterm">Void for vagueness</a><span class="glossdef">A criminal statute so imprecisely worded that it gives too much discretion to law enforcement, is unevenly applied, and fails to provide notice of what is criminal, violating the right to due process.</span></span> challenges the wording of a statute under the due process clause. A statute is void for vagueness if it uses words that are indefinite or ambiguous. Statutes that are not precisely drafted do not provide notice to the public of exactly what kind of behavior is criminal. In addition, and <em class="emphasis">more important</em>, they give too much discretion to law enforcement and are unevenly enforced.<span class="footnote" id="storm_1.0-fn03_005"><em class="emphasis">U.S. v. White</em>, 882 F.2d 250 (1989), accessed October 6, 2010, <a class="link" target="_blank" href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12667022335593752485&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr">http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12667022335593752485&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr</a>.</span> With a void for vagueness challenge, the statute must be so unclear that “men of common intelligence must guess at its meaning,”<span class="footnote" id="storm_1.0-fn03_006"><em class="emphasis">Connally v. General Construction Co.</em>, 269 U.S. 385 (1926), accessed October 3, 2010, <a class="link" target="_blank" href="http://supreme.justia.com/us/269/385/case.html">http://supreme.justia.com/us/269/385/case.html</a>.</span> which is an objective standard.</p>
<div class="section" id="storm_1.0-ch03_s02_s01_s01_s01">
<h2 class="title editable block">Example of a Statute That Is Void for Vagueness</h2>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch03_s02_s01_s01_s01_p01">A state legislature enacts a statute that criminalizes “inappropriate attire on public beaches.” Larry, a law enforcement officer, arrests Kathy for wearing a two-piece bathing suit at the beach because in his belief, women should wear one-piece bathing suits. Two days later, Burt, another law enforcement officer, arrests Sarah for wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach because in his belief, women should not be seen in public in bathing suits. Kathy and Sarah can attack the statute on its face and as applied as void for vagueness. The term “inappropriate” is unclear and can mean different things to different people. Thus it gives too much discretion to law enforcement, is subject to uneven application, and does not give Kathy, Sarah, or the public adequate notice of what behavior is criminal.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class="section" id="storm_1.0-ch03_s02_s01_s02">
<h2 class="title editable block">Overbreadth</h2>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch03_s02_s01_s02_p01">A statute is <span class="margin_term"><a class="glossterm">overbroad</a><span class="glossdef">A statute that criminalizes both constitutionally protected and constitutionally unprotected conduct, violating the right to due process.</span></span> if it criminalizes both constitutionally protected and constitutionally unprotected conduct. This challenge is different from <strong class="emphasis bold">void for vagueness</strong>, although certain statutes can be attacked on both grounds. An overbroad statute criminalizes <em class="emphasis">too much</em> and needs to be revised to target only conduct that is outside the Constitution’s parameters.</p>
<div class="section" id="storm_1.0-ch03_s02_s01_s02_s01">
<h2 class="title editable block">Example of an Overbroad Statute</h2>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch03_s02_s01_s02_s01_p01">A state legislature enacts a statute that makes it criminal to photograph “nude individuals who are under the age of eighteen.” This statute is probably overbroad and violates due process. While it prohibits constitutionally <em class="emphasis">unprotected</em> conduct, such as taking obscene photographs of minors, it also criminalizes First Amendment <em class="emphasis">protected</em> conduct, such as photographing a nude baby.</p>
<div class="figure large editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch03_s02_s01_s02_s01_f01">
<p class="title"><span class="title-prefix">Figure 3.3</span> The Due Process Clause</p>
<img src="section_07/58e945d300ef895ea4206c46d00f6cf3.jpg">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="section" id="storm_1.0-ch03_s02_s02">
<h2 class="title editable block">The Equal Protection Clause</h2>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch03_s02_s02_p01">The Fourteenth Amendment states in relevant part, “nor shall any State…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The <span class="margin_term"><a class="glossterm">equal protection clause</a><span class="glossdef">A clause in the Fourteenth Amendment that prohibits the state government from enacting statutes that arbitrarily discriminate.</span></span> applies to the <em class="emphasis">state</em> government. State constitutions generally have a similar provision.<span class="footnote" id="storm_1.0-fn03_007">California Constitution, art. I, § 7, accessed October 4, 2010, <a class="link" target="_blank" href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1">http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1</a>.</span> The equal protection clause prevents the state government from enacting criminal laws that <em class="emphasis">discriminate</em> in an unreasonable and unjustified manner. The Fifth Amendment due process clause prohibits the federal government from discrimination if the discrimination is so unjustifiable that it violates due process of law.<span class="footnote" id="storm_1.0-fn03_008"><em class="emphasis">Bolling v. Sharpe</em>, 347 U.S. 497 (1954), accessed October 4, 2010, <a class="link" target="_blank" href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16234924501041992561&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr">http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16234924501041992561&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr</a>.</span></p>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch03_s02_s02_p02">The prohibition on governmental discrimination is not absolute; it depends on the class of persons targeted for special treatment. In general, court scrutiny is heightened according to a sliding scale when the subject of discrimination is an arbitrary classification. Arbitrary means random and often includes characteristics an individual is born with, such as race or national origin. The most arbitrary classifications demand <strong class="emphasis bold">strict scrutiny</strong>, which means the criminal statute must be supported by a <em class="emphasis">compelling</em> government interest. Statutes containing classifications that are not arbitrary must have a <strong class="emphasis bold">rational basis</strong> and be supported by a <em class="emphasis">legitimate</em> government interest.</p>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch03_s02_s02_p03">Criminal statutes that classify individuals based on their race must be given strict scrutiny because race is an arbitrary classification that cannot be justified. Modern courts do not uphold criminal statutes that classify based on race because there is no government interest in treating citizens of a different race more or less harshly.<span class="footnote" id="storm_1.0-fn03_009"><em class="emphasis">Loving v. Virginia</em>, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), accessed October 4, 2010, <a class="link" target="_blank" href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html">http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html</a>.</span></p>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch03_s02_s02_p04">Criminal statutes that have a rational basis for discrimination and are supported by a legitimate government interest <em class="emphasis">can</em> discriminate, and frequently do. Criminal statutes that punish felons more severely when they have a history of criminal behavior, for example, three-strikes statutes, are supported by the legitimate government interests of specific and general deterrence and incapacitation. Note that the basis of the discrimination, a criminal defendant’s <em class="emphasis">status as a convicted felon</em>, is rational, not arbitrary like race. Thus although these statutes discriminate, they are constitutional pursuant to the equal protection clause.</p>
<div class="figure large editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch03_s02_s02_f01">
<p class="title"><span class="title-prefix">Figure 3.4</span> The Equal Protection Clause</p>
<img src="section_07/7cf2595d4c0eb1f31281b746c9a2251c.jpg">
</div>
<div class="key_takeaways editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch03_s02_s02_n01">
<h3 class="title">Key Takeaways</h3>
<ul class="itemizedlist" id="storm_1.0-ch03_s02_s02_l01">
<li>The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the Constitution and contains many protections for criminal defendants.</li>
<li>Selective incorporation applies most of the constitutional protections in the Bill of Rights to the states.</li>
<li>Substantive due process protects criminal defendants from unreasonable government intrusion on their substantive constitutional rights. Procedural due process provides criminal defendants with notice and an opportunity to be heard before imposition of a criminal punishment.</li>
<li>A statute that is void for vagueness is so imprecisely worded that it gives too much discretion to law enforcement, is unevenly applied, and does not provide notice of what is criminal. A statute that is overbroad includes constitutionally protected conduct and therefore unreasonably encroaches upon individual rights.</li>
<li>The equal protection clause prevents the state government from enacting criminal laws that arbitrarily discriminate. The Fifth Amendment due process clause extends this prohibition to the federal government if the discrimination violates due process of law.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div class="exercises editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch03_s02_s02_n02">
<h3 class="title">Exercises</h3>
<p class="para" id="storm_1.0-ch03_s02_s02_p05">Answer the following questions. Check your answers using the answer key at the end of the chapter.</p>
<ol class="orderedlist" id="storm_1.0-ch03_s02_s02_l02">
<li>A local ordinance makes it a misdemeanor to dress in “gang attire.” Is this ordinance constitutional? Why or why not?</li>
<li>Read <em class="emphasis">Smith v. Goguen</em>, 415 U.S. 566 (1974). Why did the US Supreme Court strike down the Massachusetts flag misuse statute? The case is available at this link: <a class="link" target="_blank" href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14723025391522670978&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr">http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14723025391522670978&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr</a>.</li>
<li>Read <em class="emphasis">Grayned v. City of Rockford</em>, 408 U.S. 104 (1972). In <em class="emphasis">Grayned</em>, the US Supreme Court analyzed an ordinance prohibiting individuals from willfully making a noise or disturbance on grounds adjacent to a school building that disturbs the peace or good order of the school session. Did the Court hold that this ordinance was constitutional? Why or why not? The case is available at this link: <a class="link" target="_blank" href="http://supreme.justia.com/us/408/104/case.html">http://supreme.justia.com/us/408/104/case.html</a>.</li>
<li>Read Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s concurring opinion in <em class="emphasis">Lawrence v. Texas</em>, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). Why did Justice O’Conner feel that Texas’s sodomy law was unconstitutional? The case is available at this link: <a class="link" target="_blank" href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZC.html">http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZC.html</a>.</li>
</ol>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div id=navbar-bottom class="navbar">
<div class="navbar-part left">
<a href="s07-01-applicability-of-the-constitut.html"><img src="shared/images/batch-left.png"></a> <a href="s07-01-applicability-of-the-constitut.html">Previous Section</a>
</div>
<div class="navbar-part middle">
<a href="index.html"><img src="shared/images/batch-up.png"></a> <a href="index.html">Table of Contents</a>
</div>
<div class="navbar-part right">
<a href="s07-03-freedom-of-speech.html">Next Section</a> <a href="s07-03-freedom-of-speech.html"><img src="shared/images/batch-right.png"></a>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<script type="text/javascript" src="shared/book.js"></script>
</body>
</html>