One common theoretical perspective posits that courts should assume a counter-majoritarian role in criminal law because the political process systematically disfavors the interests of criminal suspects and defendants. Recent shifts in the politics of crime complicate this perspective’ s assumptions, raising the paradoxical possibility that welcome improvements in the politics of crime will weaken the theoretical case for counter- majoritarian judicial decisions. This Article tentatively considers whether, if at all, courts’ interpretive approach should change in response to any continuing moderation of historic “tough on crime” politics. It suggests that while arguments for narrow construction of criminal statutes will remain strong for the foreseeable future, a more moderate and competitive politics of crime could justify greater judicial deference, at least at the margins and in some limited circumstances, to democratic choices regarding criminal procedure.

一种常见的理论观点认为，法院应该在刑法中承担反多数主义的角色，因为政治进程系统性地不利于犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的利益。最近犯罪政治的转变使这一​​观点的假设变得复杂，提出了一种自相矛盾的可能性，即欢迎犯罪政治的改进将削弱反多数主义司法判决的理论依据。本文试探性地考虑法院的解释方法是否应该改变（如果有的话），以应对历史上“严厉打击犯罪”政治的任何持续缓和。它表明，虽然在可预见的未来，狭义刑法解释的论点仍然很强烈，但更加温和和更具竞争性的犯罪政治可以证明司法更大程度地尊重刑事诉讼程序的民主选择，至少在边缘和某些有限的情况下是如此。 。