The strict-construction canon can be expressly abolished by statute

Evidence

In the principal dictionary of our language a heifer is defined to be a “young cow.” It is true that under statutes very similar to ours, there are several decisions in the English Courts, and some in the American Courts, which would appear to sustain the proposition of tie defendant’s counsel. But the rule there was that penal statutes must be strictly construed … But this rule has been abolished in this State by the Penal Code, the fourth section of which provides that “the rule of the common law, that Penal Statutes are to be strictly construed, has no application to this code, All its provisions are to be construed according to the fair import of their terms, with a view to effect its objects and to promote justice.’ — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 1597

Categorization

• XREF: 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; 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; Some states statutorily reject the strict-construction rule for penal statutes — Lawrence M. Friedman and Grant M. Hayden, American Law: An Introduction, 501 (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• Some states statutorily reject the strict-construction rule for penal statutes #corroborates (0.85) — Lawrence M. Friedman and Grant M. Hayden, American Law, 501
• Courts follow canons of construction as guidelines, not binding rules #qualifies (0.75) — Lawrence M. Friedman and Grant M. Hayden, American Law, 498
• A penal statute’s silence on a subject implies no legislative intent to regulate it #complicates (0.72) — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 1005