The Golden Rule is a principle of statutory interpretation that requires judges to interpret a statute's words according to their ordinary and natural meaning, except where doing so would lead to an absurdity or an inconsistency with the statute's purpose. While the Golden Rule can be helpful in resolving ambiguities in statutory language, it also has both pros and cons.
Advantages
Resolves ambiguities: The Golden Rule can help judges resolve ambiguities in statutory language by allowing them to consider the broader context and purpose of the statute.
Consistent with legislative intent: The Golden Rule can help judges interpret a statute in a way that is consistent with the legislature's intent, even when the statute's language is unclear or ambiguous.
Promotes flexibility: The Golden Rule allows judges to depart from a strict interpretation of the statute's words when necessary to avoid an absurd or unjust result.
Disadvantages
Subjective interpretation: The Golden Rule requires judges to make subjective judgments about what constitutes an absurd result or inconsistency with the statute's purpose, which can lead to inconsistent or unpredictable outcomes.
Overriding legislative intent: The Golden Rule can lead to judges overriding the legislature's intent by interpreting the statute in a way that the legislature did not intend.
Can create uncertainty: The use of the Golden Rule can create uncertainty for individuals and businesses who must comply with the statute, as they may not know how a court will interpret the statute in a given case.
Study with us to smash your AL/AS Law exam now:
