Investigating The Validity of “Consistent Meaning” in Interpretation Of Criminal Statutes

Despite nullifying the concept of Qīyās (analogy),the jurists of Imamiya have no disagreement over the validity for “consistent meaning” and Qiyas al-awlawiyya (a fortiori qiyas) and believe it is permissible to generalize the ruling to non-specific issue because of its priority. However, regarding the interpretation of criminal laws, the main question which is raised here is: how valid is the concept of consistent meaning with regard to the legality of the crime and punishment principle and the interpretation in favor of the defendant?
It seems that wherever this concept is believed by the common statutes  to be part of connotative meaning of the word and attributing it to the legislatures does not require contemplating upon the reason behind the ruling and the priority of the trifling issue in the reason for the ruling, we can accept the “consistent meaning” in criminal statutes  . However, in some cases where the judge tries to generalize the law to  trifling cases through discovering the philosophy of punishment and prudence meant by the legislator to escape punishment, this does not match the legality of the crime and punishment and interpreting the law to the benefit of the defendant and also the “consistent meaning”.