How do courts address absurdity in statutes?

Courts address absurdity in statutes by avoiding interpretations deemed unjust or unreasonable. When a statute's literal interpretation leads to outcomes that are illogical, contradictory, or counterintuitive, courts are inclined to interpret the law in a manner that aligns with the legislative intent rather than adhering strictly to the text. This principle is rooted in the idea that the purpose of law is to achieve fairness and justice, and courts seek to avoid interpretations that would result in absurd consequences.

By looking for a reasonable application of the law, courts strive to ensure that the statute accomplishes its intended goals while also reflecting societal values. This approach allows them to establish a legal framework that is both functional and equitable, favoring outcomes that make sense in the broader context of the law's purpose. The focus on avoiding unreasonable interpretations helps maintain public trust in the legal system and ensures that laws are applied in a manner that promotes justice and fairness.