Strict-construction canons and harsh criminal liability doctrines sit in unresolved tension

Evidence

Thousands of cases could be cited in which the court, as in Pierce and Frazier, upheld harsh doctrines of criminal responsibility with no reference at all to the traditional dogma of construing criminal statutes strictly. These cases have to be put beside thousands of other cases in which this dogma is discussed with great earnestness and appears often to have been deci- sive of the result. Are the two lines of cases consistent or inconsistent? — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 1666

Categorization

• SEED: Frames the pedagogical puzzle: why courts invoke strict construction selectively and when it genuinely decides outcomes.
• XREF: connects to: The strict-construction canon can be expressly abolished by statute — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 1597; 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; Absurd consequences outweigh the doctrine of strict construction of penal statutes. — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 1211 (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• Environmental law’s structure conflicts with criminal law’s core assumptions #exemplifies (0.92) — Richard J. Lazarus, The Making of Environmental Law, 862