How well does the statute comply with the principle of legality

Question/Discussion 1:
Consider Pennsylvania’s criminal statute prohibiting disorderly conduct (below):
• How well does the statute comply with the principle of legality, particularly the void for vagueness doctrine?
• Is it clear to you, a reasonable citizen of ordinary intelligence, what conduct the statute prohibits?
• Does it offer adequate guidance to law enforcement as to what conduct constitutes a violation? Why or why not?
• Do you think it offends the right to free speech? If so, which parts and in what way?
• Would loud clapping and dancing violate the statute?
• If you have concerns about the statute as presently written, how might you change it?
§ 5503. Disorderly conduct.
(a) Offense defined.–A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:
(1) engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior;
(2) makes unreasonable noise;
(3) uses obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or
(4) creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.
(b) Grading.–An offense under this section is a misdemeanor of the third degree if the intent of the actor is to cause substantial harm or serious inconvenience, or if he persists in disorderly conduct after reasonable warning or request to desist. Otherwise disorderly conduct is a summary offense.
(c) Definition.–As used in this section the word “public” means affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access; among the places included are highways, transport facilities, schools, prisons, apartment houses, places of business or amusement, any neighborhood, or any premises which are open to the public.Question/Discussion 2:
Consider the Atlantic article on income-based fines. Is the individualized Scandinavian approach that could result in a fine of thousands of dollars for a wealthier individual who is caught speeding “cruel and unusual”? Do you think it is fairer or less fair than the U.S.’s flat fee approach (same fine for a given speed regardless of income)? Which do you expect would be a more effective deterrent? Explain your answers.
What do you think of scaling not just fines but jail time according to income? One rationale might be that wealthier people are better able to cope with the burden of incarceration and so should have a proportionally longer sentence than a poorer person for the same offense. An alternative rationale might argue that wealthier people contribute more to society in the form of taxable income, so they should serve proportionally shorter sentences. Do you find either convincing? What are some other ways you could imagine sentencing according to income?
Consider also the Norwegian approach to incarceration (See youtube video, the link is below). Does seeing such a radically different approach (from that of the U.S.) change your views on incarceration? What do you think of the shaming as punishment as per the Gementera case in Samaha (pp. 66-67)? Do you think shaming could be effective? How so?Answers must be at least 250 words per Question/Discussion and must reference the assigned material for full credit. You do not need to use a formal citation format, but you must cite to the material in such a way that I can locate the source of your citation. For example, a citation to the text might look like: “Samaha, p. 5.”“To make sure there is a minimum of 250 words per answer. DO NOT TYPE THE QUESTIONS, JUST THE ANSWER.”Only use the sources attached DON’T USE ANY OTHER SOURCE!
Authors:
• Samaha, Joel – Criminal Law 12th Edition, 2017.
• Norwegian prison – Michael Moore youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IepJqxRCZY
Approximate price: $22
We value our customers and so we ensure that what we do is 100% original..

With us you are guaranteed of quality work done by our qualified experts.Your information and everything that you do with us is kept completely confidential.You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.The Product ordered is guaranteed to be original. Orders are checked by the most advanced anti-plagiarism software in the market to assure that the Product is 100% original. The Company has a zero tolerance policy for plagiarism.The Free Revision policy is a courtesy service that the Company provides to help ensure Customer’s total satisfaction with the completed Order. To receive free revision the Company requires that the Customer provide the request within fourteen (14) days from the first completion date and within a period of thirty (30) days for dissertations.The Company is committed to protect the privacy of the Customer and it will never resell or share any of Customer’s personal information, including credit card data, with any third party. All the online transactions are processed through the secure and reliable online payment systems.By placing an order with us, you agree to the service we provide. We will endear to do all that it takes to deliver a comprehensive paper as per your requirements. We also count on your cooperation to ensure that we deliver on this mandate.