The Judicial Process: Smith v. Goguen Case

The Smith v. Goguen case is an excellent example of how unclear statements can be misinterpreted. I agree with the court’s decision that the phrase “treats contemptuously” is unconstitutionally vague, as it does not fully address the standards of contemptuous treatment. Considering that the demonstration of contempt can vary significantly across individuals and can be presented differently based on the person’s traits and behavior, legislation guidelines should justify which actions are to be considered contemptuous (Vile, 2018). In the lack of such descriptions, contemptuous behavior becomes challenging to define and prosecute, which leads to complications in enacting the relevant laws. As evident in the Smith v. Goguen case, the specific definitions behind contemptuous treatment were absent, and the prosecution mostly relied on the common meaning of this term (Vile, 2018). Nevertheless, in the judicial process, it is essential to rely on the established legislation rather than the proposed understandings, meaning that the utilized language was indeed constitutionally vague.

From this perspective, the necessity to justify the principles of the contemptuous act most significantly impacts the persecution of activities that could be considered as desecrating the integrity of the national symbols. Given that perception of contemptuous behavior depends on individual preferences and beliefs, various people could understand the “contemptuous treatment” idea differently, leading to numerous interpretations of the law (Hessick, 2016). However, to ensure just and equal law enforcement, the persecution should rely on distinct legislative guidelines, avoiding vague definitions and different understandings of the issue (Hessick, 2016). Considering that the language in the Massachusetts statute was unconstitutionally vague, this instance can prevent the emergence of similar situations which are based on the broad meaning of contemptuous treatment and not a specific definition.

References

Hessick, C. B. (2016). Vagueness principles. Arizona State Law Journal, 48.

Vile, J. R. (2018). The American flag: An encyclopedia of the stars and stripes in U.S. history, culture, and law. ABC-CLIO.

Cite this paper

Select style

Reference

StudyCorgi. (2023, March 10). The Judicial Process: Smith v. Goguen Case. https://studycorgi.com/the-judicial-process-smith-v-goguen-case/

Work Cited

"The Judicial Process: Smith v. Goguen Case." StudyCorgi, 10 Mar. 2023, studycorgi.com/the-judicial-process-smith-v-goguen-case/.

* Hyperlink the URL after pasting it to your document

References

StudyCorgi. (2023) 'The Judicial Process: Smith v. Goguen Case'. 10 March.

1. StudyCorgi. "The Judicial Process: Smith v. Goguen Case." March 10, 2023. https://studycorgi.com/the-judicial-process-smith-v-goguen-case/.


Bibliography


StudyCorgi. "The Judicial Process: Smith v. Goguen Case." March 10, 2023. https://studycorgi.com/the-judicial-process-smith-v-goguen-case/.

References

StudyCorgi. 2023. "The Judicial Process: Smith v. Goguen Case." March 10, 2023. https://studycorgi.com/the-judicial-process-smith-v-goguen-case/.

This paper, “The Judicial Process: Smith v. Goguen Case”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal. Please use the “Donate your paper” form to submit an essay.