Statutory Interpretation

Unlike torts, contracts, and property, criminal law is almost entirely statute-based. There are still many cases to be read. But unlike in the other courses, the cases are not read in order to discern what the law is. Instead, the purpose of the case readings is to provide examples and guidelines for how to interpret criminal statutes. Often times statutes can be quite ambiguous. When lawyers and judges are interpreting statutes, they need to consider the legislative history and the legislative purpose in order to understand what the statute means. For example, in criminal law, in order to be found guilty of a crime, there is almost always the requirement of a mental element (known as mens rea). It is not enough that a person does a criminal act, that person must also have a culpable state of mind at the time of the action (purposefully, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently to name a few). Sometimes statutes are silent as to what the mental requirement is. The usual common law practice is for court to assume that a mens rea requirement is implied in the text of a statute, and can only be nullified by the legislature specifically stating that there is no such requirement. However, interpretation can sometimes lead in another direction. Policy considerations sometimes can counteract common law assumptions. For example, if a law is passed that has clear public policy objectives (for example regulating the sale of prescription drugs), a court might discern that those objectives outweigh the potential harm done to an individual who is found strictly liable for breaking that law (finding a defendant guilty for simply committing the act without any consideration of fault or the reasonableness of their conduct). In these cases, courts will interpret the statute as not having a mens rea requirement unless the legislature specifically requires one. 

I understand that this can be confusing. That is precisely the point. Statutory interpretation is NOT easy and can be downright painful. But my extensive work with it in criminal law is providing me with another skill that every lawyer needs to have. I continue to be impressed at how well-rounded and complete the first year of law school is in teaching students all the required basics of being an effective lawyer.