The void for vagueness doctrine in the mirror of judicial processes of The United States Supreme Court and its feasibility in the criminal system of Iran

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 PH.D Student in Criminal law & Criminoloy, Shiraz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Fars, Iran

2 Assistant Professor, Faculty of law, Shiraz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Fars, Iran

Abstract

 
The void for vagueness doctrine, as one of the results of rule of law called certainty, precision, and clarity, has been identifies in the judicial process of The United States. In line with the due process principles directly stated in the 5th and 14th amendments and separation of powers principle, the Supreme Court of the United States knows the aforementioned doctrine revocable because of its contradiction with the constitutional principles for two reasons: First, because some penal statutes are so vague that the addressee with common sense cannot realize or understand the justly notice warning, legal and illegal behaviors. Second, it has been written in such a broad way that police, prosecutors, judges, and juries can execute it arbitrarily and discriminatorily when authorized. The findings of the present research reveal that void for vagueness doctrine is a good way to apply judicial review. This doctrine investigates law in an "as apply" and "facial" review. The mentioned doubts like lack of legitimacy of the constitution, lack of clarity, under inclusiveness, and lack of real understanding of the segregation of some ambiguous and vague terms have questioned the very doctrine claiming that this doctrine will no longer exist this way. The authors have introduced and specified the entity, principles, factors, and the purpose of applying such a doctrine focusing on the issued votes in the Supreme Court of the United States through descriptive and analytic procedures. The investigation of this doctrine provides a good chance to consider some problems regarding the vagueness in the legislation system in Iran and makes it possible to obtain a suitably corresponding pattern to exploit the judicial system. Article type: Periodical

Keywords

References

  1. الف) فارسی

    1. ایروانیان، امیر (1392). نظریۀ عمومی سیاست‏گذاری جنایی، چ 1، تهران: مؤسسۀ مطالعات و پژوهش‏های حقوقی شهر دانش.
    2. باطنی، محمدرضا (1388). «زبان‏شناسی: اهمیت استنباط در درک زبان»، بخارا، ش 74.
    3. جعفری لنگرودی، محمدجعفر (1380). ترمینولوژی حقوق، چ 11، تهران: گنج دانش.
    4. خواجات، بهزاد (1387). بررسی ابهام در شعر امروز؛ سفر در آینه، نقد و بررسی ادبیات معاصر، به کوشش عباس‏علی وفایی، چ 1، تهران: سخن.
    5. داوری، نگار (1375). «دلالت چندگانه، ابهام و ایهام در زبان و ادبیات فارسی»، نامۀ فرهنگستان، ش 8.
    6. سمیعی (گیلانی)، احمد (1387). نگارش و ویرایش، چ 9، تهران: سمت.
    7. شیری، قهرمان (1390). «اهمیت و انواع ابهام در پژوهش‏ها»، فنون ادبی، ش 2 (پیاپی 5).
    8. شجاعی، علی (1393). تفسیر قانون جنایی در پرتو تفسیر شناسی و تحلیل گفتمان، چ 1، تهران: دادگستر.
    9. عمید، حسن (1389). فرهنگ لغت جیبی، چ 1، تهران: راه رشد.
    10. کردعلیوند، روح‏الدین (1392). «زبان‏شناسی حقوقی»، انسان و فرهنگ، ش 3.
    11. والدرون، جرمی (1397). قانونگذاری، مفاهیم، نظریه‏ها و اصول، ترجمۀ حسن وکیلیان، چ 1، تهران: نگاه معاصر.
    12. منصورآبادی، عباس (1396). حقوق جزای عمومی، ج 1، چ 1، تهران: میزان.
    13. میرمجیدی، سپیده و غلام‏لو، جمشید (1397). «گسترۀ مشروعیت عمل قضایی در پرتو اصل حاکمیت قانون، مطالعۀ موردی پرونده‏های رابطۀ نامشروع»، مطالعات حقوق کیفری و جرم‏شناسی، ش 2، دورۀ 48، پاییز و زمستان.
    14. فضائلی، مصطفی (1387). دادرسی عادلانه: محاکمات کیفری بین‏المللی، چ 1، تهران: دانش.

     

    ب) انگلیسی

    1. Amsterdam, Anthony G. (1960). “The void-for-vagueness doctrine in the supreme court”. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 109: 67-116.
    2. Binder, Guyora. Fissell, Brenner M. (2019). “A political interpretation of vagueness doctrine”. University of Illinois Law Review, 2019: 1527-1588.
    3. Grice, Herbert Paul. (1989). “Studies in the Way of Words”. First Edition. Cambridge Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
    4. Lockwood, Cristina D. (2010). “Defining indefiniteness: suggested revisions to the void for vagueness doctrine”. Cardozo Public Law, Policy and Ethics Journal, 8: 255-340.
    5. Low, Peter W. Johnson, Joel S. (2015). “Changing the vocabulary of the vagueness doctrine”. Virginia Law Review, 101: 2051-2116.
    6. Poscher, Ralf. (2011). “Ambiguity and vagueness in legal interpretation”. Oxford Handbook on Language and Law: 128-144.
    7. Post, Robert C. (1994). “Reconceptualizing vagueness: legal rules and social orders”. California Law Review, 82: 491-507.
    8. Tiller, Emerson H. Cross, Frank B. (2006). “What is legal doctrine?” Northwestern University Law Review, 100: 517-533.
    9. Wagner, Anne. Werner, Wouter. Cao, Deborah (2007). “Interpretation, Law and the Construction of Meaning”. First Edition. Heidelberg: Springer Netherlands.
    10. Waldron, Jeremy (1994). “Vagueness in Law and Language: Some Philosophical Issues”, California Law Review, Vol. 82, Issue 3.
    11. Zydney Mannheimer, Michael. J (2020). “Vagueness as Impossibility”, Texas Law Review, Vol. 98.

    ج) پرونده‏ها

    1. Boyce Motor Lines v. United States, 342 U.S. 337 (1952).
    2. Cline v. Frink Dairy Co, 274 U.S. 445 (1927).
    3. City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. at 58 (1999).
    4. Connally v. General Construction Co, 269 U.S. 385 (1926).
    5. Ex Parte Jackson, 45 Ark. 158 (1885).
    6. Goguen v. Smith, 415 U.S. 566 (1974).
    7. Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972).
    8. Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451 (1939).
    9. Mc Junkins v. State, 10 Ind. 140, 140-41 (1858).
    10. Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733 (1974).
    11. Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 (1972).
    12. Screws v. United State, 325 U.S. 91, 93 (1945).
    13. State v. Boon, 1 N.C. 191 (1801).
    14. United States v. Brewer, 139 U.S. 278 (1891).
    15. United States v. Johnson, 135 S. Ct. 2551, 2570 (2015).
    16. United States v. Harris, 347 U.S. 612, 617 (1954).
    17. United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co, 255 U.S. 81 (1921).
    18. United States v. Nat'l Dairy Prods. Corp., 372 U.S. 29 (1963).
    19. United States Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers AFL-CIO, 413 U.S. 548 (1973).
    20. United States v. Nash, 229 U.S. 373 (1914).
    21. United States v. Raines, 362 U.S. 17 (1960)
    22. United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214 (1875).
    23. United States v. Williams, 128 S. Ct. 1830, 1845 (2008).
    24. Villge. of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc, 455 U.S. 489 (1982).
    25. Winters v. New York, 333 U.S. 507 (1948).
Comparative Law Review
Volume 12, Issue 2
December 2021
Pages 633-663

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics