does a purposive approach of statuary construction neccesarily always favour a state in a trial?
<p>the purposive approach choses the interpretation that furthers the purpose of a legislature. but does it take into account things like  if a broadly worded law was intended to he applicable to particular cases or not (example if such a case was taken into account, would the  drafters want the case to fall within th scope of the law or not)</p>

<p>It does not, as prosecutors often use statutes for purposes other than the purposes for which they were intended. <em>See</em>, <em>e.g.</em>, <a href="https://casetext.com/case/yates-v-united-states-26" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Yates v. United States</em>, 135 S. Ct. 1074 (2014)</a>.</p>
<p>For a very straightforward example, take the classic law school hypothetical: A law that says &quot;No cars in the park.&quot;</p>
<p>If you drive your truck into the park, a purposivist approach would permit your conviction for violating the statute. In that case, purposivism favors the state.</p>
<p>But if you bring a Matchbox car into the park, a purposivist approach would not permit your conviction for violating the staute. In that case, purposivism favors the defendant.</p>
<p>And of course, prosecutors are a creative bunch, so they're forever coming up with new ways to existing statutes to prosecute people using statutes that aren't a natural fit for their misconduct.</p>

interpretation