Rule of lenity

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. 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". 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". 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". 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: 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: ==Islamic law==

Islamic law has a similar tenet which allows the imposition of punishments only in the absence of "doubt or ambiguity". ==Modern status in US==

The rule is today seen as an expression of legislative supremacy. It is infrequently cited in contemporary opinions. During oral arguments for the 2016 case Lockhart v. United States, Justice Antonin Scalia raised the question of the rule's application: In the end, he joined the majority in refusing to apply the rule. 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". At issue was the question of whether the word "take", as used in the state's law against auto theft, 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 holding that the mere "temporary control" of the car was enough under the statue. On the other hand, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court cited the rule in Commonwealth v. Dayton 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. State codification The states of Florida and Ohio have codified the rule. 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." The Ohio law states simply that offenses and penalties shall be "strictly construed against the state and liberally construed in favor of the accused". ==See also==