Rule of lenity

Last updated

The rule of lenity, also called the rule of strict construction, is a principle in criminal law that requires a court to interpret an ambiguous or unclear criminal statute in the way that is most favorable to the defendant. The rule has a long history in the English and American common law tradition and has been an important element of the relationship between the courts and the legislature, but its role in modern jurisprudence is less clear.

Contents

Overview

Today, determining legislative intent is a critical job that arises from the distinct and separate roles played by the judiciary and the legislature in administering justice. Judges are routinely required to apply the relevant laws and rules passed by the legislature to the decisions they make. There are reasons this can be difficult.

For one, laws are intended to apply generally and it would be impossible for the legislature to foresee all the possible situations to which they might apply after their enactment.

For the purpose of resolving this issue, courts have developed canons of interpretation. The rule of lenity is one such canon. Implicit in its provisions is the additional burden placed on the prosecution in a criminal case and the protection of individual rights against the powers of the state. It also furthers the fundamental principle of requiring notice in criminal law. Individuals should not be punished for their acts when the law fails to communicate to the public that such acts are forbidden.

It is intended to apply only to those instances where the court recognizes the existence of more than one interpretation and where the decision that the court reaches harms or benefits the defendant to some greater or lesser degree. In that case, the rule requires the court to select the interpretation most beneficial (or least detrimental) to the defendant.

History

The traditional rule, also called the rule of strict construction, arose in the English common law for a purpose very different from those cited in U.S. law.

English common law

Originally, the rule was conceived by English judges trying to limit Parliament's use of the death penalty. When the facts of a case were not expressly described by a law, the court would "strictly construe" it so as to exclude its application to the case in question.

A 1547, a law passed that denied a lesser sentence to first-time offenders convicted of "felonious stealing of Horses, Geldings or Mares" among other offenses. [1] The courts interpreted the law as applying to only those convicted of stealing two or more horses and allowed first-offenders who stole one horse to continue to avail themselves of the lesser penalty. The following year, Parliament explicitly addressed the rule's use with the passage of a new law, solely dedicated to horse thievery. They pointed to the prior law's "ambiguous" wording and its construction by the courts. The new law explicitly stated that those convicted of stealing "any Horse, Gelding, or Mare" shall be treated the same as those charged with "stealing two Horses, two Geldings, or two Mares, or any other". [2] [3] [4]

Under the reign of George II, another law concerning first-offenders and livestock was similarly limited by the courts. This time, the act ambiguously referred to “Sheep, or other Cattle.” [5] The following year, Parliament passed a new “Act to Explain An Act” in which they expressly spelled out that the statute should apply to “any Bull, Cow, Ox, Steer, Bullock, Heifer, Calf [or] Lamb, [or] Sheep, and to no other Cattle whatsoever.” [6]

Early American law

Laying out the rule's application in the American courts, it was first cited in 1820 by Chief Justice John Marshall in United States v. Wiltberger :

The rule that penal laws are to be construed strictly, is perhaps not much less old than construction itself. It is founded on the tenderness of the law for the rights of individuals; and on the plain principle, that the power of punishment is vested in the legislative, not in the judicial department.

...

[T]hough penal laws are to be construed strictly, they are not to be construed so strictly as to defeat the obvious intention of the legislature. The maxim is not to be so applied as to narrow the words of the statute... in their ordinary acceptation, or in which the legislature has obviously used them.... The intention of the legislature is to be collected from the words they employ. Where there is no ambiguity in *the words, there is no room for construction. [7]

20th century

After its initial wide acceptance, other canons, such as the clear statement rule and the vagueness doctrine, have encroached on the rule and its use by the courts. In 1961, Justice Frankfurter wrote in Callanan v. United States, that the rule is for expressing the will of Congress, not protecting defendants from it:

The rule of lenity [is] for resolving an ambiguity, not [creating one].... The rule comes into operation at the end of the process of interpreting what Congress has expressed, not at the beginning as an overriding consideration of being lenient to wrongdoers. [8]

Islamic law

Islamic law has a similar tenet which allows the imposition of punishments only in the absence of "doubt or ambiguity". [9] [10]

Modern status in US

The rule is today seen as an expression of legislative supremacy. [11] It is infrequently cited in contemporary[ clarification needed ] opinions. [12]

During oral arguments for the 2016 case, Lockhart v. United States , [13] Justice Antonin Scalia sua sponte raised the question of the rule's application:

"...what I worry about is the rule of lenity. You have these dueling canons, and you have a rule that when the government sends somebody to jail for 10 years, it has to cross sharp corners. It has to dot every i and cross every t. It has to be clear!" [14]

In the end, he joined the majority in refusing to apply the rule. [15] [16]

In State v. Thonesavanh, The Minnesota Supreme Court expressly rejected the position that the rule "allows a defendant to prevail in every instance in which a criminal statute is ambiguous." [17] At issue was the question of whether the word "take," as used in the state's law against auto theft, [18] required the accused to actually move the vehicle, or, as in this case, merely to enter it and lock the doors. The court relied on the doctrine of in pari materia in holding that the mere "temporary control" of the car was enough under the statue. [19]

On the other hand, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court cited the rule in Commonwealth v. Dayton [20] in ruling that the ambiguous language in the state's OUI law did not permit suspects to be held without bail unless they had been convicted three times under the statute, as opposed to being arrested three times. [21]

State codification

The states of Florida and Ohio have codified the rule. [12] The Florida statute states that the code "shall be strictly construed; when the language is susceptible of differing constructions, it shall be construed most favorably to the accused." [22] [12] The Ohio law states simply that offenses and penalties shall be "strictly construed against the state and liberally construed in favor of the accused." [23]

More states,[ quantify ] however, have eliminated the rule by statute. [24]

See also

Related Research Articles

A statute of limitations, known in civil law systems as a prescriptive period, is a law passed by a legislative body to set the maximum time after an event within which legal proceedings may be initiated. In most jurisdictions, such periods exist for both criminal law and civil law such as contract law and property law, though often under different names and with varying details.

In criminal and civil law, strict liability is a standard of liability under which a person is legally responsible for the consequences flowing from an activity even in the absence of fault or criminal intent on the part of the defendant.

In the United States, strict constructionism is a particular legal philosophy of judicial interpretation that limits or restricts the powers of the federal government only to those expressly, i.e., explicitly and clearly, granted to the government by the United States Constitution. While commonly confused with textualism or originalism, they are not the same, and in fact frequently contradict, as textualists like Antonin Scalia have noted.

Statutory interpretation is the process by which courts interpret and apply legislation. Some amount of interpretation is often necessary when a case involves a statute. Sometimes the words of a statute have a plain and a straightforward meaning. But in many cases, there is some ambiguity in the words of the statute that must be resolved by the judge. To find the meanings of statutes, judges use various tools and methods of statutory interpretation, including traditional canons of statutory interpretation, legislative history, and purpose. In common law jurisdictions, the judiciary may apply rules of statutory interpretation both to legislation enacted by the legislature and to delegated legislation such as administrative agency regulations.

The Statutes at Large is the name given to published collections or series of legislative Acts in a number of jurisdictions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Slayer rule</span> Murderer cannot inherit from their victim

The slayer rule, in the U.S. law of inheritance, stops a person inheriting property from a person they murdered.

The golden rule in English law is one of the rules of statutory construction traditionally applied by the English courts. The rule can be used to avoid the consequences of a literal interpretation of the wording of a statute when such an interpretation would lead to a manifest absurdity or to a result that is contrary to principles of public policy. The rule can be applied in two different ways, named respectively the narrow approach and the broad approach.

Textualism is a formalist theory in which the interpretation of the law is based exclusively on the ordinary meaning of the legal text, where no consideration is given to non-textual sources, such as intention of the law when passed, the problem it was intended to remedy, or significant questions regarding the justice or rectitude of the law.

<i>R v Drybones</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Drybones, [1970] S.C.R. 282, is a landmark 6-3 Supreme Court of Canada decision holding that the Canadian Bill of Rights "empowered the courts to strike down federal legislation which offended its dictates." Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Canada held that section 94(b) of the Indian Act is inoperative because it violates section 1(b) of the Canadian Bill of Rights.

In criminal law, strict liability is liability for which mens rea does not have to be proven in relation to one or more elements comprising the actus reus although intention, recklessness or knowledge may be required in relation to other elements of the offense. The liability is said to be strict because defendants could be convicted even though they were genuinely ignorant of one or more factors that made their acts or omissions criminal. The defendants may therefore not be culpable in any real way, i.e. there is not even criminal negligence, the least blameworthy level of mens rea.

A rape shield law is a law that limits the ability to introduce evidence about the past sexual activity of a complainant in a sexual assault trial, or that limits cross-examination of complainants about their past sexual behaviour in sexual assault cases. The term also refers to a law that prohibits the publication of the identity of a complainant in a sexual assault case.

Derogation is a legal term of art, which allows for part or all of a provision in a legal measure to be applied differently, or not at all, in certain cases. The term is also used in Catholic canon law, and in this context differs from dispensation in that it applies to the law, whereas dispensation applies to specific people affected by the law.

<i>Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart</i> Leading English case on statutory interpretation

Pepper v Hart [1992] UKHL 3, is a landmark decision of the House of Lords on the use of legislative history in statutory interpretation. The court established the principle that when primary legislation is ambiguous then, in certain circumstances, the court may refer to statements made in the House of Commons or House of Lords in an attempt to interpret the meaning of the legislation. Before this ruling, such an action would have been seen as a breach of parliamentary privilege.

Rose v. Locke, 423 U.S. 48 (1975), was a United States Supreme Court case in which a Tennessee statute proscribing "crime against nature" was held not unconstitutionally vague as applied to cunnilingus, satisfying as it does the due process standard of giving sufficient warning that men may so conduct themselves as to avoid that which is forbidden. Viewed against that standard, the challenged statutory phrase is no vaguer than many other terms describing criminal offenses at common law, which are now codified in criminal codes. Moreover, the Tennessee Supreme Court by previously rejecting claims that the statute was to be narrowly applied has given sufficiently clear notice that it would be held applicable to acts such as those involved here when such a case as this arose.

Ambiguity occurs when a single word or phrase may be interpreted in two or more ways. As law frequently involves lengthy, complex texts, ambiguity is common. Thus, courts have evolved various doctrines for dealing with cases in which legal texts are ambiguous.

United States v. Rodriquez, 553 U.S. 377 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case interpreting the Armed Career Criminal Act. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the 6–3 majority, ruled that although the elements of a crime may not be considered "serious," sentence enhancements related to a defendant's prior record will bear on how the determination is made.

Cooper Manufacturing Co. v. Ferguson, 113 U.S. 727 (1885), was a suit regarding the legitimacy of a sale of a steam engine and other machinery in the State of Ohio.

The purposive approach is an approach to statutory and constitutional interpretation under which common law courts interpret an enactment within the context of the law's purpose.

In Canada, the term quasi-constitutional is used for laws which remain paramount even when subsequent statutes, which contradict them, are enacted by the same legislature. This is the reverse of the normal practice, under which newer laws trump any contradictory provisions in any older statute.

Shular v. United States, 589 U.S. ___ (2020), is an opinion of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that, under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, the definition of “serious drug offense” only requires that the state offense involve the conduct specified in the statute. Unlike other provisions of the ACCA, it does not require that state courts develop “generic” version of a crime, which describe the elements of the offense as they are commonly understood, and then compare the crime being charged to that generic version to determine whether the crime qualifies under the ACCA for purposes of penalty enhancement. The decision states that offenses defined under the ACCA are "unlikely names for generic offenses," and are therefore unambiguous. This renders the rule of lenity inapplicable.

References

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1 Edw. VIII, c. 12, § (X)(3) (1547), Ruffhead, Owen; Adams, John (1763). The statutes at large: from Magna Charta, to the end of the last parliament, 1761. In eight volumes. Vol. 2. London: Mark Basket and his assigns, Mark Woodfall, and William Strahan. p. 395. Retrieved 28 September 2017.
  2. ↑ 2 & 3 Edw. VIII, c. 37, § X(3) (1547), Ruffhead, Owen; Adams, John (1763). The statutes at large: from Magna Charta, to the end of the last parliament, 1761. In eight volumes. Vol. 2. London: Mark Basket and his assigns, Mark Woodfall, and William Strahan. p. 426. Retrieved 18 July 2024.
  3. ↑ Baker, John Hamilton (2003). "Ch. 6: Criminal Law and Procedure" . The Oxford History of the Laws of England: 1483-1558. London: Oxford University Press. p.  540. ISBN   978-0-19-825817-9 . Retrieved 28 September 2017.
  4. ↑ Blackstone, William (1915). "Pt.3 Sec.118 (I): Construction of Penal Statutes". Commentaries on the Laws of England (William Carey Jones ed.). San Francisco: Bancroft-Whitney Company. p.  154.
  5. ↑ 14 Geo. II, c. 6, § I (1741), Ruffhead, Owen; Adams, John (1765). The statutes at large: from Magna Charta, to the end of the last parliament, 1761. In eight volumes. Vol. 6. London: Mark Basket and his assigns, Mark Woodfall, and William Strahan. p. 410. Retrieved 18 July 2024.
  6. ↑ 15 Geo. II, c. 34 (1742), Ruffhead, Owen; Adams, John (1765). The statutes at large: from Magna Charta, to the end of the last parliament, 1761. In eight volumes. Vol. 6. London: Mark Basket and his assigns, Mark Woodfall, and William Strahan. p. 477. Retrieved 18 July 2024.
  7. ↑ 18 US 76, 95 (Supreme Court 1820).
  8. ↑ "Callanan v. United States, 364 US 587 – Supreme Court 1961" – via Google Scholar.
  9. ↑ Rabb (2011), p. 1316-1317.
  10. ↑ Rabb, Intisar A. (2010). "Islamic Legal Maxims as Substantive Canons of Construction: Ḥudūd-Avoidance in Cases of Doubt". Islamic Law and Society. Vol. 17. pp. 63–125 at 66. Retrieved 3 October 2017.
  11. ↑ Rabb (2011), p. 1305.
  12. 1 2 3 Price 2004, p. 902.
  13. ↑ "Google Scholar". scholar.google.com.
  14. ↑ Stern, Mark Joseph (3 November 2015). "Scalia Sticks Up for a Child Pornography Convict". Slate . Retrieved 3 October 2017.
  15. ↑ 136 S. Ct. 958 at 968
  16. ↑ See the dissent by Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer. They expressly support the rule and its use in the case before them (136 S. Ct. at 977).
  17. ↑ "State v. Thonesvanh, Minn: Supreme Court 2017" – via Google Scholar.
  18. ↑ "Sec. 609.52 MN Statutes". www.revisor.mn.gov.
  19. ↑ Jones, Barbara L. (8 September 2017). "Supreme Court reverses ruling in auto theft that went nowhere". Minnesota Lawyer. Retrieved 3 October 2017.
  20. ↑ "Google Scholar". scholar.google.com.
  21. ↑ Dunn, Bob (11 June 2017). "Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court finds OUI law ambiguous". The Berkshire Eagle. Retrieved 3 October 2017.
  22. ↑ "Sec. 775.021". Florida Stat. Ann. Retrieved 3 October 2017.
  23. ↑ "Sec. 2901.04". Ohio Rev. Code. Retrieved 3 October 2017.
  24. ↑ Price 2004, p. 903.

Works cited

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.