Understanding Criminal Law Interpretation
Interpretation of Criminal Law
The interpretation of legal rules is defined as the discovery and determination of the law’s meaning in order to apply it to specific real-life cases. Rules are not always clear, which necessitates a proper understanding of legal interpretation to ensure justice. Several theories of statutory interpretation exist:
Theories of Statutory Interpretation
- Subjective Theory: According to this theory, the meaning of the law must be sought in the legislature’s intention (mens legislatoris).
- Objective Theory: This theory posits that the meaning of the law is found within the law itself (mens legis), representing the law’s message. Because lawmaking involves multiple individuals, teams, or institutions, the text of the law becomes independent from its creators once formed.
- Eclectic Theory: This approach combines subjective and objective elements in the interpretation process.
Types of Interpretation
Interpretation is performed according to various criteria, primarily:
Based on the Interpreter
- Authentic Interpretation: Performed by the legislator, either within the law itself or in a subsequent law that clarifies the former. For example, Article 22 of the Criminal Code (CP) defines malice aforethought as an aggravating circumstance. To avoid misinterpretations, the legislator provides a definition of treachery in the following line, stating it occurs when the offender commits the offense against people using methods and means to ensure the result.
- Usual or Case Law Interpretation: Carried out by legal professionals and courts when applying the law.
- Doctrinal Interpretation: Conducted by legal scholars through scientific papers, articles, books, reports, etc.
Based on its Effects
- Declarative Interpretation: The message of the law aligns with its spirit, and the text of the law matches the legislature’s intention.
- Strict Interpretation: Occurs when the law’s wording implies more than what the legislature intended.
- Extensive Interpretation: Occurs when the law’s wording implies less than what the legislature intended.
Additional performance features include:
- Grammatical: Considers the literal meaning of words.
- Logical: Employs logical reasoning.
- Historical: Considers the historical context that influenced the law’s writing.
- Systematic: Considers the law as a whole.
- Sociological: Addresses the social reality that existed when the rule was created.
These elements are reflected in Article 3 of the Civil Code (CC), which states that laws are to be interpreted according to the proper meaning of words within their context, considering historical and social elements.
In any interpretation, the principle of in dubio pro reo must be observed. This means that if there is uncertainty regarding the crime, rules of evidence prevent the application of the most restrictive standard. Jurisprudence and doctrine dictate that criminal law should be applied narrowly, grammatically, and in accordance with the principle of legality. Extensive interpretation can only be applied if it favors the accused; otherwise, it must be strict and grammatical. The entire legal system, particularly the prison system, proclaims the presumption of innocence, as stated in Article 24 of the Constitution (EC).
Analogy in Legal Interpretation
Analogy is another form of interpretation. It involves extending the principles derived from a rule to a case not explicitly covered by it, but which shares an essential affinity with one or more aspects regulated by the rule. It should not be confused with extensive interpretation, because in analogy, there is no existing law, whereas, in extensive interpretation, there is.
Analogy can be:
- Analogy of Law (Legis): Applies a specific legal provision to other cases not covered by the law.
- Analogy of Right (Iuris): Derives principles from general law through induction to apply to such cases.
There are differing opinions on the admissibility of analogy. Some reject it, arguing that it historically threatens legal certainty and can be abused. Others accept it as an effective technique to address certain problems, asserting that a ban on analogy would often prevent the application of justice.
Article 4 of the CC supports analogy, stating that rules shall apply mutatis mutandis (with necessary changes).
Article 4 of the Penal Code provides that criminal laws do not apply to situations or at times other than those expressly included in them, effectively prohibiting analogy. However, other rules clarify that analogy is prohibited against the defendant but not in favor of the defendant.
Articles 21-22 of the CP specify aggravating circumstances and nothing more, but in mitigating circumstances, they state that any other circumstances that are similar to those listed may be considered.