does a purposive approach of statuary construction neccesarily always favour a state in a trial?

Question

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)

Answer 1

It does not, as prosecutors often use statutes for purposes other than the purposes for which they were intended. See, e.g., Yates v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1074 (2014).

For a very straightforward example, take the classic law school hypothetical: A law that says "No cars in the park."

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.

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.

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.