Like many others, I'm a huge fan of Justice William W. Bedsworth's column, "A Criminal Waste of Space".  Today's post was inspired by Justice Bedsworth's most recent column bemoaning the misplaced instinct of lawyers from their nonage to their dotage to give the benefit of the doubt:

In 2002, I wrote an opinion reversing a conviction for escape from a juvenile facility. In re Antonio F., 98 Cal. App. 4th 1227 (2002). We held that while we couldn’t figure out why the legislature would differentiate between an escape from a detention facility and an escape from a field trip to a museum, that was the way the statute read, and for all we knew, experts on child behavior had a reason for such a distinction. We gave the legislature the benefit of the doubt.

The legislature reversed us in about an hour-and-a-half. They re-wrote the statute so there would be no difference. But that’s typical of the kind of thing you write as a young judge.  Today I would not give them the benefit of quite that much doubt. And we’d all be the better for it.

Orange County Lawyer, 60 (Dec. 2015) (footnote omitted).  I believe that Justice Bedsworth was correct in the first instance.

Giving the benefit of the doubt to the legislature promotes accountability.   If the legislature enacts a poorly drafted statute, the courts should not relieve the legislature of its responsibility by "fixing" the law.  When the court applies a statute as written, it creates a feedback loop to the legislature.  The court is essentially saying: "Look what you've done!"  The legislature can then fix the problem as it did in Justice Bedsworth's case.  The legislative reversal means that the legislature, not the court, got it wrong when it drafted the statute.

Giving the benefit of the doubt to the legislature promotes certainty and reduces costs.  Ideally, the public should be able to read and rely on a statute as written.  When a court interprets a statute in an unexpected way, it introduces uncertainty.  Uncertainty is itself a cost.  Judicial repair of poorly drafted statutes makes the law less accessible because the public is forced to read, or hire lawyers to read, an ever growing number of opinions.

Giving the benefit of the doubt to the legislature is consistent with the separation of powers.  Under our system of government, it is the legislature that drafts the laws.  Cal. Const. Art. IV, § 1 ("The legislative power of this State is vested in the California Legislature which consists of the Senate and Assembly, but the people reserve to themselves the powers of initiative and referendum.") When a court rewrites those laws because it feels that it will achieve a better result, the court is arrogating to itself a part of the legislative powers.

Doubt, Which Doubt?

Note that we generally say "the benefit of the doubt" and not "the benefit of doubt".  Thus, the expression is an odd yoking of the definitive, "the", with the uncertain, "doubt".  The use of the definitive article makes it clear, that the phrase refers to not just any doubt, but a specific doubt. In Justice Bedsworth's account, the doubt is whether the legislature actually intended to make a distinction that appeared illogical.