In US constitutional law, we have the concept of unconstitutionally vague, or "void for vagueness". Generally, a law will be overturned for this reason, because average citizen cannot tell • what conduct is prohibited, • what people are targeted and, • what punishment might be imposed. For example, the San Francisco Pigtail Ordinance of 1873 was a law intended to force prisoners in there to have their hair cut within an inch of the scalp. But it mainly affected Qing Chinese prisoners with the queue they often wore. In 1879, with Ho Ah Kow v. Nunan, the US Supreme Court struck it down, citing it was mainly directed at one group, Chinese Americans, and violated equal protection under the 14th Amendment. In many states, it is illegal to trick-or-treat on Halloween, if you are over the age of 13. Those places include Chesapeake, Virginia, Jacksonville, Illinois, and Rayne, Louisiana. Officials who passed this law seem well-intentioned. They claim it is to cut down on things like teen vandalism. First of all, there are already laws against all vandalism. And trick-or-treating is obviously not vandalism. The penalties seem odd too. In Chesapeake, VA they had a law on the books from the 70's, that said anyone caught trick-or-treating could face up to six months in jail. That's excessive, for something like minor vandalism. And remember, they haven't even done anything yet. The laws are obviously directed against the mentally deficient. Because they tend to trick-or-treat well into adult, for the fun and the treats. If one of these treat ordinances came before a judge, the first question he'd ask it, what are you outlawing? Well, the argument might go, trick-or-treating is a form of begging (begging is obviously a status crime, but some judges say it is a choice, like homelessness, they say). Anyways, we'll just let that one stand. Begging should be illegal. The next question is, why the stiff penalty? For begging? And you can't punish someone for something they haven't done yet. Both of those violate the 8th Amendment. And lastly, even a very conservative judge would ask, this law is targeting mentally deficient people? Isn't it? That's not what you said on the bill. But that's who you had in mind when you wrote it? Isn't it? Because in the few places that still have these laws, the officials say, we would probably never enforce this law against a, say, 14 year old. To which a judge would say "exactly". There are very laws like this left in the US. But if there are any of them left, they should obviously be struck down.
