This article discusses the application of the rule of lenity in the American legal system. Although this constitutes a substantial element of criminal law in the United States and has been duly established in jurisprudence and legal science, it has still not been adequately applied in judicial practice. The authors of the article reflect on this situation, analyzing the historical background and the origins of this principle, as well as its current implementation in the U.S. criminal law. The work also includes a comparative analysis, where the authors juxtapose the rule of lenity with similar principles known in civil law traditions, primarily with the in dubio pro reo principle. It allows the authors to uncover the true essence of the rule of lenity, better comprehend its meaning, and answer the question of how its wider use can strengthen the American criminal law system. According to the authors, a forgotten, albeit fundamental, principle such as the rule of lenity has the potential to become a disruptor for the entire US criminal law system. The article is divided into three parts. In Part I, the authors discuss the practice of applying the rule of lenity in US law. In particular, attention is paid to the legal basis, scope, and motives for its use in judicial practice. However, the authors do not stop there and analyze where the courts’ reluctance to use this legal tool comes from, and why it should be used more often in cases where there is ambiguity in the language of a statute. Part II of the article contains a comparative legal analysis, where the authors look for equivalents for the rule of lenity in legal systems based on the civil law tradition and within international law. The Polish criminal law system was chosen for the analysis, as a typical order of continental law. This section discusses how legal systems, in which the importance of codified law and the role of the judge is greater, use similar legal tools in truth-finding within the criminal process. Importantly, such analysis allows one to look at American solutions from a completely new and fresh perspective, allowing one to understand the true essence and importance of the rule of lenity. In Part III of the article, the authors argue for greater use of the rule of lenity in American judicial practice, what is essential for maintaining fairness and justice, and ensuring compliance with the basic principles of the criminal law. Importantly, the authors emphasize the importance of fuller inclusion of the rule of lenity in the decisions of various actors of the criminal process, i.e. courts, prosecutors, and juries, but also within the legal education process. Above all, this principle comprises a fundamental element of the criminal system and safeguards against an unjustified deprivation of liberty in cases where the law is unclear.

本文讨论了宽大规则在美国法律体系中的适用。尽管这构成了美国刑法的一个实质性要素，并在法理学和法学中得到了适当的确立，但它在司法实践中仍然没有得到充分的运用。文章作者对此进行了反思，分析了该原则的历史背景和起源，以及该原则在美国刑法中的实施现状。该著作还包括一项比较分析，作者将宽大处理规则与民法传统中已知的类似原则（主要是疑罪从无原则）并置。它使作者能够揭示宽大规则的真正本质，更好地理解其含义，并回答其更广泛的使用如何加强美国刑法体系的问题。作者认为，诸如宽大原则之类虽然基本但却被遗忘的原则有可能成为整个美国刑法体系的破坏者。文章分为三个部分。在第一部分中，作者讨论了美国法律中适用宽大规则的实践。尤其关注其在司法实践中运用的法律依据、范围和动机。然而，作者并没有就此止步，并分析了法院不愿使用这一法律工具的原因，以及为什么在法规语言含糊不清的情况下应该更频繁地使用它。本文的第二部分包含比较法律分析，作者在基于民法传统和国际法的法律体系中寻找宽大规则的等同物。选择波兰刑法体系作为大陆法系的典型秩序进行分析。本节讨论法律制度，其中成文法的重要性和法官的作用更大，如何在刑事诉讼过程中使用类似的法律工具查明真相。重要的是，这样的分析可以让人们从一个全新的视角来看待美国的解决方案，让人们理解宽大规则的真正本质和重要性。在文章的第三部分中，作者主张在美国司法实践中更多地运用宽大原则，这对于维护公平正义、确保遵守刑法基本原则至关重要。重要的是，作者强调了将宽大处理规则更充分地纳入刑事程序各行为者（即法院、检察官和陪审团）的决定中的重要性，而且也将其纳入法律教育过程中。最重要的是，这一原则构成了刑事制度的基本要素，并防止在法律不明确的情况下不公正地剥夺自由。