Florida's disregard of due process rights for nearly a decade: treating drug possession as a strict liability crime.
Author | Lyons, Rachel A. |
INTRODUCTION THE HISTORY OF MENS REA AND STRICT LIABILITY CRIMES: From the Common Law to Modern American Criminal Jurisprudence The Early Beginnings of Mens Rea The Common Welfare Offense Doctrine Supreme Court Jurisprudence on Strict Liability and the Disposal of Mens Rea FLORIDA'S DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONTROL LAW The Element of Mens Rea in Section 893.13 The Legislature Clarifies its Intent for the Drug Possession Law SECTION 893.13 AS AMENDED HELD FACIALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL MORISSETTE AND STAPLES COMPEL AN ANALYSIS OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STRICT LIABILITY CRIMES UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT Morissette Staples SECTION 893.13 AS AMENDED VIOLATES THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT FLORIDA'S LEGISLATURE MUST CHANGE THE LAW TO PROHIBIT THE CAPTURING OF INNOCENT BEHAVIOR IN THE REALM OF CRIMINAL LAW AND TO COMPLY WITH DUE PROCESS CONCLUSION INTRODUCTION
From its jurisprudential inception, the application of strict liability principles to criminal law has always punished the innocent, (2) Today, the government is increasingly utilizing its most astounding power--prosecution and imprisonment--in enacting and enforcing a significant amount of crimes as punishable without any proof of criminal intent. (3) Strict liability crimes that have been improperly and unjustifiably enacted into law have eroded the constitutional principle of fair notice and punished many individuals who may or may not have had the intent to commit a criminal act. (4) Allowing strict liability crimes to continue to punish individuals runs counter to fundamental constitutional principles. The severe injustice of strict liability crimes has been demonstrated and voiced since the Athenian tragedy of Oedipus the King. (5)
When Oedipus was an infant, his parents abandoned him. (6) Polybus and Merope of Corinth took him as their own and raised him; hence, Oedipus grew up believing they were his parents. (7) When Oedipus grew older, an oracle told him he was destined to murder his father and sleep with his mother. (8) Oedipus indefatigably spends his life avoiding the commission of these two heinous crimes. (9) One night, Oedipus kills some men on the road as a result of an argument over a fight of way. (10) Unbeknownst to Oedipus, one of the men was Laius the King of Thebes. (11) Subsequently, Oedipus is summoned to take the throne of Thebes and marry Jacosta, the former wife of Laius. (12) As King, Oedipus inquires about who murdered Laius was and is informed by a prophet that it was he. (13) Disturbed by this information, Oedipus tells his wife and she confesses to him that an oracle once told Laius he would be killed by his own son. (14) She explains how Laius's death occurred and Oedipus realizes that he murdered Laius. (15) Unsettled by the thought he could be Lauis's son, Oedipus seeks out the Shepard who gave him away as a baby to discover the true identity of his parents. (16) The Shepard states that Oedipus is the son of Laius and Jacosta, abandoned by them as an infant. (17) Oedipus is horrified that in fact he did kill his father and slept with his mother. (18) Oedipus is held strictly liable for the murder of his father and incestuous relations with his mother without any inquiry into his mens rea. (19) Although he unwittingly engaged in conduct he did not know was criminal, Oedipus is exiled and suffers a stigma so severe he gouges his own eyes out and never returns to Thebes. (20)
Oedipus lived in an archaic and doctrinal world without justice. The world today is not so different. Just as Oedipus was engaged in unintended criminal conduct before he discovered the truth of his actions, individuals in Florida who are engaged in the innocent behavior of general possession of objects, substances, personal items, etc., are subject to an identical strict liability standard. (21) For example, the same concern of injustice would arise when a friend, bringing a package to the post office for a roommate, is stopped on the way and searched by an officer. The officer uses a canine to sniff the car and discovers the contents of the package arouse suspicion. Unbeknownst to the friend, the roommate's package contains cocaine. The friend will be convicted of drug possession without the State being required to prove the friend had knowledge of the illicit nature of the contents of the package. Florida's Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Law expressly dispenses with the well-settled, common law requirement of mens rea. (22) Such a comparison against Oedipus may seem fanciful, yet it is not. (23) Citizens of Florida live in a state that provides a mere shadow of justice in its criminal laws due to a legislature that has decided to regulate the wholly passive and innocent conduct of general possession in attempt to regulate drug possession. (24) The current state of the law is so unjust that it violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by subjecting millions of people to potential criminalization. (25)
This Article examines the United States Supreme Court's jurisprudence that constitutionally compels an analysis under the Due Process Clause for strict liability crimes, and how the Florida Legislature overstepped its due process limitations when it amended Florida's Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Law in 2002. Part I traces the evolution of mens tea in the criminal justice system. Part II provides a history of Florida's Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Law. Part III discusses the recent constitutional challenges to Florida's Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Law. Part IV explains why the United States Supreme Court cases addressing strict liability crimes compel a constitutional analysis under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Part V focuses on how Florida's Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Laws violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Finally, part VI provides both a pragmatic solution for the Florida Legislature to remedy Florida's Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Law and an overwhelming suggestion to the United States Supreme Court to require legislatures to engage in a delineated due process analysis when enacting strict liability crimes.
THE HISTORY OF MENS REA AND STRICT LIABILITY CRIMES: FROM THE COMMON LAW TO MODERN AMERICAN CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE
THE EARLY BEGINNINGS OF MENS REA
A fundamental lynchpin within the field of American criminal law and a term deeply rooted in United States Supreme Court's jurisprudence and American culture is the Latin phrase mens rea, (26) or otherwise known as "guilty mind". (27) The term mens rea is often used in a broad sense to refer to a person's general culpability. (28) Specifically, in American criminal law, mens rea is, "the particular mental state provided for the definition of the offense." (29) Yet, the precise definition of the word is elusive at best because each jurisdiction within the United States has the police power to decide what the requisite mens rea shall be for each individual crime in its criminal statutes. (30) Even a glance into the historical development of mens rea does not bring clarity to a singularly accepted definition of the term. (31)
The material element of mental culpability dates back to the earliest known legal systems of ancient Hebrew law, Roman law, Anglo-Saxon law, and Christian theology. (32) In the early thirteenth century, the Anglo-Saxon Church had a great deal of influence on the development of criminal law in England. (33) In the Church, the intent of a man was the most persuasive factor in penance since it was thought that willful intent echoed in the mind of a blameworthy "sinner." (34) These teachings of the Anglo-Saxon Church soon transformed into Anglo-Saxon law and thus the idea that criminal liability should only be found where there is some degree of culpability accompanying harmful conduct, began to emerge. (35) The actual term mens rea was coined by Saint Augustine in A.D. 597 during one of his sermons, where he wrote of evil motive and discussed the correlation between a guilty man and perjury. (36)
By the middle of the thirteenth century, St. Augustine's principle that punishment must be premised on, and proportional to, moral guilt was widely accepted and substantially influenced English jurist, Henry de Bracton. (37) As a result, Bracton authored a treatise on what criminal law should be and how it should be applied. (38) In his treatise, Bracton discussed the non-culpability of children and the insane and suggested, "mens rea required that offenders function as moral agents rationally choosing their evil designs." (39) This view strengthened the essential component of moral blameworthiness as a defense to criminal liability and persuaded other legal scholars that criminal liability could not exist without the intent to injure or cause societal harm. (40)
Since the element of mens rea was still unclear in its developmental phase, courts began to shape early criminal law by defining how the state of mind relates to a voluntary act. (41) However, mens rea took on a more concrete meaning when courts began to recognize certain defenses to criminal liability ascertaining that offenders could engage in a voluntary act without mens rea. (42) In the early seventeenth century, Lord Edward Coke (43) wrote his Third Institute, which was a repertoire of materials on criminal law. (44) In this compilation, Lord Coke established the American criminal law maxim, "actus not facit reum nisi mens sit rea." (45) As a result of his influence, English criminal law required mens rea for the conviction of serious offenses and this principle carried over to the American colonies, although it was limited in its application. (46) The English common law courts believed it was necessary to provide a clear understanding of the element of mens rea, since offenses began to require particular states of mind rather than solely rely upon pure evil motive. (47) In...
To continue reading
Request your trialCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.