Vagueness The “void for vagueness” doctrine argues that a law cannot be enforced if it is so vague or confusing that the normal person could not fathom what is being forbidden or fathom the penalties for breaking this law. Vagueness is usually considered to be a due process issue because a law that is unclear and does not provide acceptable notice to people that a certain behavior is required or is unacceptable (What does it mean when a law is “void for vagueness” or “overbroad” n.d.). Vagueness is an argument usually used in criminal cases, when a law that is intended to prohibit a specific behavior is too vague or confusing for people to understand what behavior they’re being asked to avoid, on penalty of being charged with or convicted of a crime (What does it mean when a law is “ void for vagueness” or “overbroad” n.d.). Example of vague: “Coates v. Cincinnati the US Supreme Court held that a statute which criminalized three or more people assembling on a sidewalk and “annoying” other people was too vague. People would have to guess as to what conduct law enforcement would consider “annoying”. By forcing people to guess what the statute meant, the law violated the Constitutional right to due process of law” (Edelson 2015). Overbreadth …show more content…
Under the overbreadth doctrine, a law is unconstitutional or void for being too broad if it covers activities that are protected by the federal Bill of Rights or the rights listed in state constitutions. Unlike vagueness doctrine, arguments that a specific law is overbroad typically do not appear in criminal cases. Instead, most overbreadth arguments come up in First Amendment cases, where a statute attempts to ban or to make a behavior criminal that is protected by the First Amendment (What does it mean when a law is “void for vagueness” or “overbroad”