The Rule of Lenity
Addresses how interpreters should
approach vaugeness and ambiguity in so-called “penel statutes”
The rule of lenity comes up most often when courts are
construing statutes that authorize criminal punishment
- but also provisions authorizing fines or forfitures are sometimes classified as “penal” for this purpose, even though they are civil rather than criminal
Traditional rule of lenity
told courts to construe penal statutes “strictly”
Modern rule of lenity
Tells courts that when they encounter vaugness or amibuity in a “penal” statute
AND
when they cannot resolve the interminancy by applying various other interpretive tools, they should adopt the least harsh of the permissible interpretations
rule of lenity
instead of helping to resolve, it tells courts how to
respond to indetermaniency
Justification for rule of lenity
fair warning
treat the rule of lenity as a
last resort
How the rule of lenity is treated as a last resort
- only if the statute remains intractably ambiguious or vauge, should courts proceed to apply the rule of lenity
- even then, the rule simply be used to choose among the options that their other interpretive tools have identified as all being pretty much equallt plausible
Overall argument for amount of usage of rule of lenity
- should rarely, if ever come into play
v. - courts ought to apply it whenever the matter is not beyond a reasonable doubt
The rule of lenity is basically a type of
tie-breaker
Rule of Lenity is driven by more
policy, substantive
4 points on traditional rule of lenity
- can be overused
- discourage interpretations
- more likely to have legis. repond
- possibility for misuse
Notice in relation for using the rule of lenity
Idea that you should have the idea of whats illegal before sent to prison
