Discuss the significance of the ruling in Coates v. Cincinnati when analyzing the concepts of statutory clarity and void for vagueness. Do you agree with the ruling of the case? Why or why not?
What will be an ideal response?
Coates v. Cincinnati ruled that an ordinance was unconstitutionally void for vagueness that declared that it was a criminal offense for “three or more persons to assemble . . . on any of the sidewalks . . . and there conduct themselves in a manner annoying to persons passing by.” The statute failed to convey specificity; thus, it would have been unjust to prosecute individuals based on a law that is ultimately vague. Students must discuss what statutory clarity and void for vagueness entails and why these concepts may or may not help protect individual rights. Students must also discuss why they agree or disagree with the ruling in Coates v. Cincinnati. They may provide examples.
You might also like to view...
The conflict model says that the interests of criminal justice agencies tend to make actors within the system self-serving
Indicate whether the statement is true or false
Evidence has two forms: associative and __________
Fill in the blank(s) with correct word
Braithwaite's (1989) theory of reintegrative shaming is best seen as a modern or recent contribution to which branch of conflict criminology?
a. Labeling theory b. Structural Marxism c. Left realism d. Masculinities theory
________ is a disposition that implies offender supervision but defers punishment with a set of specified criteria and goals.
A. A suspended sentence B. Restitution C. Parole D. Probation