For much of our history, it appears that state courts altogether prohibited defendants in recidivism proceedings from challenging prior convictions as erroneous, as opposed to void for lack of jurisdiction.

—"that it is just that an old offender should be punished more severely for a second offence—that repetition of the offence aggravates guilt."

The attack made in this proceeding is not direct but collateral, 23 Cyc., 1062, 3, and to succeed, the judgment must be not merely irregular and voidable but actually void.

—discussing the extent of punishment inflicted by a criminal statute, the Supreme Court of Illinois declared that "it would not be for the court to say the penalty was not proportioned to the nature of the offense."

"There is a distinction between void and erroneous; and the general rule is undoubted, that where the court has jurisdiction of the sub-A

The Criminal Court had jurisdiction of the person of the defendant and of the subject-matter, and it is presumed to have proceeded regularly in all that it did.

[PDF] Eugenical Sterilization

[PDF] The Constitutionality of Asexualization Legislation in the United States