Are Vagrancy Laws Truly Dead?

Vagrancy laws possess deep historical roots, traceable back to medieval English law, their first appearance showing through the Statute of Labourers (1349) — a series of laws passed in response to economic disturbance after the Black Death. In great contrast to their function today, vagrancy laws were initially implemented in medieval societies to construct a means of social control. This control was specifically exerted over the American labor force before and after the Industrial Revolution, as a means of criminalizing unemployment so people would seek out jobs to contribute to society. Vagrancy laws took on another task after the Civil-War era, where they were enacted alongside Black Codes to limit the freedom of newly emancipated African Americans. Despite the collapse of these traditional utilizations (that involve racial prejudice and discrimination based on status) of Vagrancy laws, modern American society has adopted contemporary versions — especially in urban areas, which have shown to still strive for some control over the impoverished. Therefore, the current efforts of Vagrancy laws have been put under legal review in recent decades, in order to uncover any infringement on individual rights. 

Traditional Vagrancy laws, designed for the aforementioned purpose of enforcing social control over the specific working class, as well as to restrict the mobility of impoverished groups, were dissolved officially in the 1972 Supreme Court Case Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville. Prior to this case, the Vagrancy laws passed in the United States, while adopted by English practice, were implemented in a starkly different fashion. Used in combination with the Black Codes after the Civil-War, these laws specifically incriminated former slaves (many of which were now unemployed) and pushed them back into oppressive labor conditions under former masters.  Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville featured a decision based on the Void for Vagueness Doctrine, a constitutional principle (primarily derived from the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments) that required laws, specifically criminal statutes, to be comprehensible by common citizens to avoid arbitrary enforcement. Thus, these laws were deemed unconstitutional for three primary reasons, the first of which was Lack of Clear Notice, which explained that the used language was too generalized - lessening the public’s understanding of the code of conduct. Language such as "habitual drunkards” or people who were “wandering or strolling about” confused the common person’s perception of what was criminal or not. 

The Court recognized this and emphasized that citizens shouldn’t have to gamble on what is criminal behavior and what isn’t, and the law should provide fair warning before incrimination. This would also lead to Arbitrary enforcement, the second reason that the Supreme Court dissolved Vagrancy laws in Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville. Vague language used essentially gave too much undue discretion (personal power) to police officers when deciding who to stop and arrest for violation of these laws. This, in addition to the lack of clear standards outlined by Vagrancy laws, directly lead to unfair and discriminatory application of this law. The final primary reason that the Supreme Court ruled for the dissolution of these laws was their effect on the rights and individual liberties of American people. For instance, the freedom to move, associate with others in a community, and the fundamental right of peaceful assembly, were blatantly challenged by Vagrancy laws with traditional foundations. The court noted this infringement on basic rights and came to the conclusion that everyday activities (such as window shopping, strolling through a park, visiting friends, etc.) could be perceived as criminal activities. To elaborate further, the Court also understood that this capricious outline of laws would lead to the public fearing innocent activities and, again, having their constitutional freedoms suppressed. 

Overall, the outlawing of Vagrancy statutes by the Supreme Court in Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville (1972) specifically was the result of the Court’s recognition of their infringement of individual liberties, and their possible arbitrary enforcement. However, another principle that questioned the constitutionality and integrity of Vagrancy laws was that the government could not punish an individual for their status in society (their condition and who they are), but rather only for a specific criminal act. This protection is specifically given by the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, and a doctrine established in 1962 in the case Robinson v. California. In this case, the Supreme Court held that it was not illegal to be addicted to narcotics (drugs used for non medical purposes). In other words, an individual who was addicted to drugs could not be arrested or punished simply for their addiction. In correlation to Vagrancy laws, this idea was put under legal review initially because being addicted to narcotics effectively put that individual into a group or status of people, because an addiction was basically a medical condition. Therefore, implementing a law that made non-medical drug addiction illegal was discrimination against people of a certain status or a particular minority group in society. The crucial distinction ultimately made by the court was that while the specific act of illegally selling or processing drugs could be punished, the condition or state of being addicted to them could not. Thus, the precedent was set that laws could not be inherently against a state (status) or condition of an individual/group, and punishment could only be dealt in response to an offense (action). 

The precedent set by Robinson v. California played a significant role in the application of the newly established status doctrine, specifically in the context of homeless people. The doctrine was brought into consideration in order to assess whether or not the homelessness of someone constituted a status. It was discerned that homelessness is an unconscious or involuntary condition that occurs as a result of economic/structural factors in a society, and therefore the arrest of someone solely based on the fact that they were homeless was unconstitutional. The 2018 Supreme Court case Martin v. City of Boise solidified that certain actions (most commonly presented by homeless people) were unavoidable or lacked a safe/legal alternative. This “safe/legal alternative” test was conducted on many of the practices of homeless people, and the findings from these tests, as well as the novel understanding that homelessness was a condition that could not be punished without violating the Eighth Amendment, lead to the Court’s final verdict. 

In full, the rejection of traditional Vagrancy laws and their harmful implications in terms of prejudice and cruel and unusual punishment have come to establish vital constitutional precedents for American citizens. However, despite the overall legal victory in eliminating these stringent statutes against certain groups of individuals who fall under a condition, the government’s underlying motive to harness control over public spaces and the display of poverty continues to drive arbitrary accusations and incrimination in society today. In other words, despite the modern interpretations and versions of Vagrancy laws, governmental bodies are still very susceptible to criminalizing certain groups and subsequently violating constitutionally upheld liberties.