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.  

TGIF

The weekend is finally here (although the work never stops). This week has been particularly grueling since we had classes last Sunday. After my first semester, I have learned to appreciate these weekends early in the semester when you can actually relax and take Friday and Saturday night off. That unfortunately will change in about a month. Much less case reading for me this semester. Property is the only class where I am extensively reading cases for every class. Lots of theory-based stuff and essays for Leg/Reg and to a lesser extent Crim Law (which still has some case reading, but not exclusively). My Lawyering and Written/Oral Advocacy classes are overlapping somewhat right now in their content. Whereas last semester I was learning how to think like a lawyer, this semester I am more so learning how to actually be a lawyer. Enjoy the weekend.  

P.S.  23-13 Steelers (although I will be rooting hard for God's team). 

P.P.S. Congratulations, Michael Steele. You have an unenviable task. Let's get to work!  

Is this Law School or Undergrad all over again? [John]

Its been two weeks since I started the second semester. And I definitely have to agree with Eugene that last semester was a lot more conventional and blackletter law. So far, this semester is much more philosophical. From the Theories of Punishment in Criminal Law to the Theories of the State of Nature, natural law and positive law in Constitutional Law, it feels like I am back in undergrad instead of being in law school. But I definitely understand its importance of these theories in the development of our legal system.

Especially in Constitutional Law--it was definitely an advantage for our class the my teacher decided to begin the discussion of Con Law with Locke and Hobbs theories of the state of nature. Most other sections began with Marbury v. Madison without ever studying or actually understanding the historical underpinnings of that decision. My teacher spent a full week (4 classes) on State of Nature, the Bank Debate and the theory of sovereignty, Chrisholm v. Georgia and many different speeches that the federalist and anti-federalist have wrote before and after the ratification of the Constitution. That class is a lot of work with at least 8 hours of reading per night (reading the dense assignments twice like he recommends) for 4 days per week, but I'm definitely enjoying it immensely!

Good to be Back

The first semester is in the books. Contracts, Torts, and Civil Procedure are history. Now it is on to Property and Criminal Law. At least for me, second semester appears to be slightly less "conventional", and by that I mean less of the type of core first year courses that everyone knows. Aside from the previously mentioned Property and Crim Law, I am also taking Lawyering, Written & Oral Advocacy, and Legislation & Regulation. From what I understand, both Lawyering and Leg/Reg are relatively new courses at NYLS and the professors are still in the process of fine tuning them. We shall see. First semester was a very memorable experience, but it feels good to be starting over. Everything is once again new and exciting. I can already tell that Criminal Law is something very different from Torts/Contracts/Property. It seems much more philosophical (that can be a good thing and a bad thing). Reading 40 pages a night on the musings of various philosophers on "what is punishment" and "why do we punish" can be both intellectually stimulating, yet at the same time extremely tedious. I'll be very interested to see where the class goes. Let's get started!