Abstract Occasionally traced back to Byzantine times, the rule that penal statutes are to be interpreted strictly in favor of the subject, also known as the rule of lenity, now finds expression in common law countries across the world. This Article compares the origins and evolution of the rule in Australia and the United States. The comparison is timely because of the current uncertainty in both jurisdictions about the rule's rationale and scope and because of an emerging global trend towards the “constitutionalization” of common law rules of interpretation. In the course of the analysis, various facets of the rule are discussed, including its common law origins; jurisprudential development; purported constitutional foundations; and modifications by state and federal statutes. Tracing the rule's development in each country reveals significant commonalities, but also important differences, in the respective approaches to the interpretation of criminal statutes. Most importantly, despite similarities in the two countries’ constitutional structures, the rule has assumed constitutional significance in the United States but not in Australia. Identification of this marked difference provides an opportunity to reflect on the separation of powers, and the federal structure, of each country.

中文翻译：

---

大洋彼岸？：澳大利亚和美国的宽容规则

摘要偶尔可以追溯到拜占庭时代的是，严格解释刑法成文的规则，也称为宽恕规则，现在在世界各地的普通法国家中都有表达。本文比较了该规则在澳大利亚和美国的起源和演变。之所以比较是及时的，因为两个司法辖区目前对该规则的理由和范围尚不确定，并且由于全球趋势趋向于将普通法解释规则“宪法化”。在分析过程中，讨论了规则的各个方面，包括其普通法的起源；法学发展；声称的宪法基础；以及州和联邦法规的修改。追踪规则” 每个国家的发展在解释刑法的各个方法上都显示出明显的共性，但也存在重要的差异。最重要的是，尽管两国的宪法结构相似，但该规则在美国具有宪法意义，但在澳大利亚没有。识别出这种明显的差异为反思每个国家的权力划分和联邦结构提供了机会。