Absurd consequences outweigh the doctrine of strict construction of penal statutes.

Evidence

No rule of construction necessitates our acceptance of an interpretation resulting in patently absurd corsequences. And the absence of any significant legislative history, other than has been related, may be indicative that Congress considered that there was no such problem as is now sought to be injected in the statutory wording or that by the 1935 amendment it had cured the previously existing one. The liberty of the individual must be scrupulously protected. But the safeguards of cherished rights are not to be found in the doctrinaire application of the tenet of strict construction. Neither an ordered system of liberty nor the proper administration of justice would be served by blind nullification of the congressional intent clearly reflected in the Federal Escape Act. — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 1211

Categorization

• XREF: Directly contradicts the ch13 holdings that penal statutes are strictly construed in favor of the accused - shows the same doctrine yielding opposite results in different contexts. — connects to: Penal statutes are strictly construed in favor of the accused — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 1055; A statute’s purpose is qualified by the costs its legislature contemplated — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 1432; Strict-construction canons and harsh criminal liability doctrines sit in unresolved tension — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 1666 (+1 more)

Broader Connections

• Some states statutorily reject the strict-construction rule for penal statutes #expands (0.85) — Lawrence M. Friedman and Grant M. Hayden, American Law, 501