a majority of this Court to so hold, but it would not, in my opinion, frustrate the purpose of the statute. Alabama’s statute does, in fact, clearly require proof of the observation of the activities of another person, and our application of the statute should be based on the statute’s clear language. Any “interpretation” of this statute and comparison of this statute to that from other jurisdictions is, therefore, unnecessary. “ ‘The Supreme Court of Alabama has also consistently stated that “[pjenal statutes are to reach no further in meaning than their words.” Clements v. State, 370 So.2d 723, 725 (Ala.1979), overruled on other grounds, Beck v. State, 396 So.2d 645 (Ala.1980) (citations omitted). See also State ex rel. Graddick v. Jebsen S. (U.K.) Ltd., 377 So.2d 940, 942 (Ala.1979) (<HOLDING>).... Furthermore, “[n]o person is to be made
holding that criminal statutes of limitation should be construed in favor of the accused holding dormancy statutes should be strictly construed holding that in presence of any doubt a penal statute is to be strictly construed holding that a governments consent to be sued must be construed strictly in favor of the sovereign holding that penal statutes are to be strictly construed in favor of the persons sought to be subjected to their operation