Dealing with Dead Crimes

• Author: Joel S. Johnson
• Position: Associate Professor of Law, Pepperdine University Rick J. Caruso School of Law
• Pages: 95-143

Dealing with Dead Crimes

JOEL S. JOHNSON*

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

I. THE LOST DOCTRINE OF DESUETUDE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

A. HISTORICAL ROOTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

B. AMERICAN APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

C. PAST ARGUMENTS FOR EMBRACING THE DOCTRINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

1. Deliberation-Forcing Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

2. Constitutional Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

II. PERNICIOUS EFFECTS OF DEAD CRIMES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

A. UNDERMINING THE RULE OF LAW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

1. Prosecutorial Abuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

2. Investigative Abuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

B. COLLATERAL EFFECTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

1. Exacerbating Racial Biases .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

2. Stripping Rights and Privileges .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

3. Entrenching Social Stigmatization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

III. A NEW CONCEPTION OF DESUETUDE FOR AMERICAN LAW . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

A. RESTRICTIVE HISTORICAL CONCEPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

B. BRIGHT-LINE ALTERNATIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

C. TYING THE PRINCIPLE TO A THEORY OF CRIMINALIZATION . . . . . . . . 130

1. A Two-Step Test for Desuetude . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

2. Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

* Associate Professor of Law, Pepperdine University Rick J. Caruso School of Law. © 2022, Joel S.

Johnson. For helpful comments and consultations, I am grateful to Charles Barzun, Josh Bowers,

Danielle Citron, Dan Epps, Brenner Fissell, Michael Gilbert, Deborah Hellman, Douglas Husak, John

Jeffries, Sarah Jones, Peter Low, Robert Mikos, Justin Murray, Richard Re, Daniel Rice, John

Stinneford, Alan Trammell, and Matthew Tokson.

95

IV. MECHANISMS FOR IMPLEMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

A. FEDERAL DUE PROCESS .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

1. Promoting the Separation of Powers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

2. Combating Overcriminalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

B. STATE DUE PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

C. FOURTH AMENDMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

INTRODUCTION

Our criminal codes are replete with “dead crimes”—crimes that are openly vio-

lated, have long gone unenforced, and no longer reflect majoritarian views. At

common law, judges could eliminate these crimes as they refined substantive

criminal law through the development of precedent. As our criminal justice sys-

tem entered the statutory age, however, that mechanism was lost. And federal,

state, and local legislatures have continuously added crimes to the books while

rarely clearing outdated ones.

1

Many dead crimes result from changes in moral sensibilities. Various states,

for example, continue to criminalize conduct as commonplace as engaging in cer-

tain innocuous behavior on Sunday,

2

swearing,

3

and spitting on the street.

4

In

some jurisdictions, moreover, it is still a crime to provide massage services for “a

person of the opposite sex.”

5

CAMDEN, N.J., CODE § 496-2, https://ecode360.com/28305328.

And while the “dominant view” (endorsed by the

Model Penal Code) is now that sexual chastity and marital fidelity are issues of

1. See infra Part II. While non-criminal laws can also fall into disuse, they are less prone to do so.

Even non-criminal laws that are “anachronistic” tend to remain vital because civil “litigants find them

advantageous in their own specific situations.” GUIDO CALABRESI, A COMMON LAW FOR THE AGE OF

STATUTES 17–30 (1982); see also Newman F. Baker, Legislative Crimes, 23 MINN. L. REV. 135, 137

(1939) (noting that updates to social legislation, particularly penal codes, are less prevalent than updates

to other types of legislation, such as business codes).

2. See, e.g., ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 17, § 3203 (prohibiting buying and selling motor vehicles on

Sunday); MASS. GEN. LAWS ANN. ch. 136, §§ 2–4 (prohibiting unlicensed dancing, sports, games, and

entertainment on Sunday); id. §§ 5–6 (prohibiting conducting certain business activities on Sunday); see

also Sara Sun Beale, Essay, The Many Faces of Overcriminalization: From Morals and Mattress Tags

to Overfederalization, 54 AM. U. L. REV. 747, 750 & n.5 (2005) (describing the history of such laws in

more detail).

3. See, e.g., MISS. CODE ANN. § 97-29-47 (prohibiting profane swearing or cursing, or use of vulgar

or indecent language, in any public place in the presence of two or more persons); MICH. COMP. LAWS

ANN. § 750.103 (prohibiting cursing “by the name of God, Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost”); OKLA.

STAT. ANN. tit. 21, §§ 901–05 (forbidding profanity and blasphemy); 11 R.I. GEN. LAWS § 11-11-5

(prohibiting swearing and cursing); see also Beale, supra note 2, at 750 n.6 (describing such statutes in

more detail).

4. See, e.g., MASS. GEN. LAWS ANN. ch. 270, § 14 (prohibiting spitting on public sidewalk); N.H.

REV. STAT. ANN. § 147:18 (same); VA. CODE ANN. § 18.2-322 (same); see also Beale, supra note 2, at

751 n.7 (describing such statutes in more detail).

5.

96 THE GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 111:95

private morality,

6

not criminal law, many states still have laws criminalizing for-

nication, cohabitation, and adultery.

7

Other dead crimes have resulted from changes in technology that have led to

open disregard and nonenforcement. For example, the New York City

Administrative Code bars using a recording device in a place of public perform-

ance.

8

Tourists using smart phones to record street performers in Central Park

and Times Square almost certainly violate that offense, without consequence,

hundreds of times a day.

There are also borderline dead crimes that are either on the cusp of becoming

outdated or have recently reached that status already. Low-level marijuana crimes

fall into this category. Although an increasing number of states have legalized

recreational marijuana use or reduced associated criminal penalties,

9

it remains

an offense subject to some penalty in most states and under federal law.

10

Michael Hartman, Cannabis Overview, NAT’L CONF. OF STATE LEGISLATURES (July 6, 2021),

https://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/marijuana-overview.aspx [https://perma.cc/

TS29-JSU4].

But

across the country, recreational marijuana use is prevalent, if not ubiquitous,

11

with the result that the low-level marijuana laws that do remain on the books are

openly disregarded and are disfavored by a majority of Americans.

12

See Andrew Daniller, Two-Thirds of Americans Support Marijuana Legalization, PEW RSCH.

CTR. (Nov. 14, 2019), https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/11/14/americans-support-marijuana-

legalization/ [https://perma.cc/AZ22-MSP8] (finding that fifty-nine percent of Americans “favor legalizing

marijuana for medical and recreational use” (emphasis added)); Justin McCarthy, Two in Three Americans

Now Support Legalizing Marijuana, GALLUP (Oct. 22, 2018), https://news.gallup.com/poll/243908/two-

three-americans-support-legalizing-marijuana.aspx [https://perma.cc/ER6A-FXV6] (reporting that sixty-

six percent of Americans support legalizing marijuana as of 2018, compared to only twelve percent in

1969).

As a crime falls out of favor, a window for legislative repeal may open, as illus-

trated by the repeal of low-level marijuana laws in some jurisdictions.

13

But by

the time dead crime status is achieved, the prospect of repeal is usually slim.

14

The ancient doctrine of desuetude offers a potential solution. Under that doctrine,

6. Beale, supra note 2, at 751–52.

7. Fornication remains a crime in many states. See, e.g., 720 ILL. COMP. STAT. ANN. 5/11-40; MISS.

CODE ANN. § 97-29-1; N.C. GEN. STAT. § 14-184; N.D. CENT. CODE § 12.1-20-08; S.C. CODE ANN.

§ 16-15-60. Cohabitation remains a crime in a handful of states. See, e.g., M

ICH. COMP. LAWS ANN.

§ 750.335; MISS. CODE ANN. § 97-29-1; N.C. GEN. STAT. § 14-184. And adultery remains a crime in a

number of states. See, e.g., ALA. CODE § 13A-13-2; ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 13-1408; FLA. STAT.

§ 798.01; 720 ILL. COMP. STAT. ANN. 5/11-35; KAN. STAT. ANN. § 21-5511; MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN.

§ 750.30; MINN. STAT. § 609.36; MISS. CODE ANN. § 97-29-1; N.Y. PENAL LAW § 255.17; N.C. GEN.

STAT. § 14-184; N.D. CENT. CODE § 12.1-20-09; OKLA. STAT. ANN. tit. 21, § 871; 11 R.I. GEN. LAWS §

11-6-2; S.C. CODE ANN. § 16-15-60; VA. CODE ANN. § 18.2-365; WIS. STAT. ANN. § 944.16; see also

DOUGLAS HUSAK, OVERCRIMINALIZATION: THE LIMITS OF THE CRIMINAL LAW 18 (2008) (describing

these laws in more detail); Beale, supra note 2, at 752 & nn.11–12 (same).

8. N.Y.C., N.Y., ADMIN. CODE § 10-702.

9. ROBERT A. MIKOS, MARIJUANA LAW, POLICY, AND AUTHORITY 3 & fig.1.1 (2017).

10.

11. MIKOS, supra note 9, at 4 (noting that nearly half of Americans over the age of twelve have tried

marijuana at some point during their lives).

12.

13. See infra text accompanying notes 217–21.

14. See infra Part II.

2022] DEALING WITH DEAD CRIMES 97