This case presents a single question of statutory interpretation of a provision within Article 27 of the Maryland Code: Is “manslaughter by automobile” under § 388 a “crime of violence” as defined by § 643B(a) for purposes of determining an inmate’s good conduct credits pursuant to § 700(d)? We shall hold that manslaughter by automobile is not such a crime.
I.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this case, gleaned primarily from the parties’ stipulation in the habeas corpus proceeding which gave rise to Petitioner’s appeal, are as follows:
Respondent was convicted of manslaughter by automobile pursuant to Maryland Code (1957,1996 Repl.Vol., 1998 Suppl.) Article 27, § 388. 1 In September, 1995, the Circuit Court for Frederick County sentenced Respondent to a term of incarceration of ten years, seven years suspended. Prior to March, 1997, the Division of Correction (D.O.C.) had considered § 388 offenses to be excluded from the list of offenses enumerated as a “crime of violence” in § 643B(a) and cross-referenced under § 700(d)(2), dealing with “Good Conduct Deductions” for prison inmates. In accordance with this interpretation, upon Respondent’s entry into prison in September, 1995, the D.O.C. awarded him ten “good conduct credits” per month as *89 prescribed by § 700(d)(3). This calculation established April 3,1997 as Respondent’s “mandatory supervision” release date, pursuant to Maryland Code (1957, 1997 Repl.VoL, 1998 Suрp.) Article 41, §§ 4-501(13) and 4-612, provided he comply with the requirements of the good conduct award. There is no dispute that Respondent maintained himself accordingly; he did nothing during the course of his incarceration to warrant removal or deduction of his good conduct credits.
In March, 1997 the D.O.C. reconsidered its interpretation of § 643B(a), and from that time forward has classified § 388 offenses as included, within the definition of “crime of violence,” thus calculating the good cоnduct credits for § 388 offenders at the rate of only five days per month of incarceration, pursuant to § 700(d)(2). Consequently, the D.O.C. recalculated Respondent’s good conduct award and established his mandatory supervision release date as September, 1997.
Respondent filed a petition for habeas corpus, challenging the D.O.C.’s re-interpretation of § 643B(a) as it applied to the crime of manslaughter by automobile under § 388, and as it affected the calculation of his good conduct credits under § 700(d). The Circuit Court for Washington County determined after a hearing that manslaughter by automobile is not included as a crime of violence under the list of § 643B(a) offenses and, consequently, that good conduct credits were to be awarded Respondent at the rate of ten days per month in accordance with § 700(d)(3). The circuit court further ordered, on April 18, 1997, that Respondent “be released under mandatory supervision forthwith.” The State filed a timely appeal to the Court of Special Appeals which affirmed the circuit court in a reported opinion.
See Sacchet v. Blan,
II.
Manslaughter by automobile is a statutory offense in Maryland. The statute currently reads, in pertinent part, as follows:
*90 § 388. Manslaughter by automobile, vessel, etc____
Every person causing the death of another as the result of the driving, operation or control of an automobile, motor vehicle, locomotive, engine, car, streetcar, train, vessel, or other vehicle in a grossly negligent manner, shall be guilty of a felony to be known as “manslaughter by automobile, motor vehicle, locomotive, engine, car, streetcar, train, vessel, or other vehicle,” and the person so convicted shall be sentenced to jail or the house оf correction for not more than 10 years, or be fined not more than $5,000 or be both fined and imprisoned.
When the General Assembly originally enacted this legislation in 1941, 2 a violation of the statute constituted a misdemeanor offense and carried a maximum term of imprisonment of three years. Several amendments followed. In 1982, the Legislature increased the maximum term of imprisonment to five years, see Laws of Maryland, 1982, Ch. 92, and then again, in 1989, to ten years, see Laws of Maryland, 1989, Ch. 515. In 1997, viоlation of § 388 was reclassified as a felony. ■ See Laws of Maryland, 1997, Chs. 372, 373. Importantly, none of these changes had occurred prior to 1975, the year of § 643B’s enactment. 3 Manslaughter by automobile had thus comprised a criminal offense under Maryland’s statutory law for thirty-four years when the General Assembly designated certain offenses as “crimes of violence” under § 643B(a). That statute provides, in its current form and in pertinent part, as follows:
§ 643B. Mandatory sentences for crimes of violence.
*91 (a) Crime of violence defined ... —As used in this section, the term “crime of violence” means abduction; arson in the first degree; kidnapping; manslaughter, except involuntary manslaughter; mayhem and maiming, as previously proscribed under §§ 384, 385, and 386 of this article; murder; rape; robbery; robbery with a deadly weapon; carjacking or armed carjacking; sexual offense in the first degree; sexual offense in the second degree; use of a handgun in the commission of a felony or other crime of violence; an attempt to commit any of the aforesaid offenses; assault in the first degree; and assault with intent to murder, assault with intent to rape, assault with intent to rob, assault with intent to commit a sexual offense in the first degree, and assault with intent to commit a sexual offense in the second degree, as these crimes were previously proscribed under former § 12 of this article. [Emphasis added.]
The calculation rate for the number of good conduct credits an inmate is to receive during the period of incarceration for a particular crime depends upon whether the crime is included within § 643B(a)’s definition of “crime of violence.” The bifurcated classification system, established by the General Assembly in 1992, provides as follows:
§ 700. Diminution of term of confinement of prisoner.
(d) Good conduct deduction.—(1) An inmate shall be allowed a deduction in advance from the inmate’s term of confinement, subject to the inmate’s future good conduct.
(2) For an inmate whose term of confinement includes a consecutive or concurrent sentence for either a crime of violence as defined in Article 27, § 643B of the Code or a crime of manufacturing, distributing, dispensing, or possessing a controlled dangerous substance as provided under Article 27, § 286 of the Code, this deduction shall be calculated at the rate of 5 days for each calendar month, and on a prorated basis for any portion of a calendar month, *92 from the first day of commitment to the custody of the Commissioner thrоugh the last day of the inmate’s maximum term of confinement.
(3) For all other inmates, this deduction shall be calculated at the rate of 10 days for each calendar month, and on a prorated basis for any portion of a calendar month, from the first day of commitment to the custody of the Commissioner through the last day of the inmate’s maximum term of confinement.[ 4 ]
The issue we are called upon to resolve in this case is whether “manslaughter by automobilе” in § 388 is included within the “crime of violence” of “manslaughter” in § 643B(a). Our answer in turn will determine the rate of good conduct credits under § 700 that should apply to an inmate convicted of an offense in violation of § 388.
III.
As this Court has often declared, the cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the true legislative intent that lies behind the statutory enactment itself.
See, e.g., Catonsville Nursing v. Loveman,
*93 The State asserts that the clear legislative intent embedded in the phrase “manslaughter, except involuntary manslaughter” was to include all forms of manslaughter, including § 388’s manslaughter by automobile, within the enumeration of crimes of violence, except for common law involuntary manslaughter. Had the General Assembly intended to include only common law voluntary manslaughter it would have employed that term alone rather than use the formulation it did. Moreover, if the Legislature had desired to except manslaughter by automobile from the enumerated offenses, it eаsily could have done so but purposefully chose not to. Respondent retorts that “manslaughter, except involuntary manslaughter” plainly indicates, instead, that only the two common law varieties of manslaughter were being contemplated by the drafters of § 643B(a): the phrase simply provides that voluntary manslaughter is included within the list of crimes of violence, involuntary manslaughter excluded. Furthermore, had the General Assembly wanted to include manslaughter by аutomobile as a crime of violence, it easily could have done so but purposefully elected not to. The plain meaning of § 643B(a) thus appears plainly different to the two parties at bar.
Respondent similarly propounds that the General Assembly’s failure to modify the manslaughter phrase in § 643B(a) is proof that manslaughter by automobile is not a crime of violence thereunder. This is so, he argues, because the Legislature has several timеs revised other phrases within the same subsection in order to add to or clarify the list of crimes of violence. Especially instructive is the 1981 amendment to § 643B(a) which appended to the common law crime of “robbery” the statutory offense of “robbery with a deadly weapon,” under § 488. See Laws of Maryland, 1981, Ch. 353. Moreover, the Legislature’s inaction with respect to the manslaughter language is particularly revealing, if § 388 offenses were originally meant to be inсluded in 1975, in light of the fact that until the D.O.C.’s re-interpretation of § 643B(a) in 1997, the “prosecutors and the courts ... [and] the Division of Correction” had essentially “thwarted” the intent of the Gen *94 eral Assembly for twenty-two years without any legislative correction. The Court of Special Appeals found this purported decision by the Legislature not to amend the manslaughter language in § 643B(a) dispositive:
[Sections 388 and 643B] have been revisited several times by a legislature that meets at least annually, and at no time has the legislature included manslaughter by automobile as a crime of violence.' They could have done so easily but they did not. The only interpretation is that the omission was deliberate.
Sacchet v. Blan,
The State might have responded before this Court that the reason for this supposedly purposeful inaction by the General Assembly was the legislators’ contentment, with the “fact” that manslaughter by automobile was already included within the еnumerated offenses, which contention of fact the State continues to press. The State’s counter argument is different, however. The State insists that “no conclusion can be drawn from [the] historical application” of § 643B because it is only since the Legislature’s 1992 bifurcation of the distribution of good conduct credits between crimes of violence and other crimes that the inclusion vel non of § 388 as a crime of violence has become relevant. 5
*95
We conclude that the answer to the question before us liеs neither in any supposed plain meaning of the phrase “manslaughter, except involuntary manslaughter” as enacted by the 1975 General Assembly nor in any purported inaction with respect to the same language by the successive Legislatures. Resolution of this case does not require us to rely upon what the Legislature could have done or upon what it has not done. As we have seen, and as is almost always the case, each of these factors is subject to arguably equally plausible interpretations, if all we look to is the single, contested phrase as if in a vacuum. It is for this reason that viewing statutory language in isolation is a method of construction which this Court eschews.
See In re Douglas P.,
A strong factor in leading us to conclude that manslaughter by automobile is excluded from § 643B(a) is that, unlike all other included offenses, a conviction under § 388 does not require proof of any criminal intent on the part of the оffender but only a showing of gross negligence.
See Connor v. State,
Further indicative of § 388’s exclusion from the roster of violent crimes under § 643B(a) is another untenable legal inconsistency that would result from adopting the opposite interpretation. After setting out the initial list of crimes of violence, in which appears the crime of “manslaughter, exceрt involuntary manslaughter,” § 643B(a) stipulates that also included is “an attempt to commit any of the aforesaid offenses.” As this Court announced in
Cox v. State,
There is an exception ... to the general rule that attempt applies to all offenses. Crimes that do not involve intent to do a criminal act generally fall outside the scope of the crime of attempt. If there is no intent to do a wrongful act, then usually there is no crime of attempt.
Id.
at 331,
Another possible interpretation is that the attempt language is simply ineffective as it relates to the allegedly included offense of manslaughter by automobile. We have, however, repeatedly applied the principle of statutory construction that an interpretation of one provision of a statute that negates another should be avoided.
See In re Wallace W.,
The earlier penalty provisions and crime classification of § 388, in effect at the time of the Legislature’s enactment of § 643B, also demonstrate the legislative intent not to include manslaughter by automobile as a crime of violence. In 1975, manslaughter by automobile was classified as a misdemeanor offense and a conviction under § 388 allowed for a maximum term of imprisonment of three years. Meanwhile, a conviction of the felony offense of involuntary manslaughter—again, a crime expressly excluded by the General Assembly from the category of crimes of violence—provided for a period of incarceration of up to ten years, in accordance with § 387. It hardly makes sense that the General Assembly, within the singular phrase “manslaughter, except involuntary manslaughter,” intended to include manslaughter by automobile within § 643B(a) so as to treat § 388 offenders more harshly than involuntary manslaughter offenders by subjecting them to long-term mandatory sentencing for subsequеnt convictions of
*98
a crime of violence, yet punish those same § 388 offenders less severely in terms of potential maximum sentences for a § 388 conviction not subject to repeat offender treatment.
6
The State’s reliance on this Court’s holding in
Forbes v. State,
Finally, the State has argued that this Court’s interpretation of the generic term “rape” in § 643B(a) as embracing both common law and statutory varieties of the offense warrants a similar interpretation of the word “manslaughter.” In
Blandon v. State,
Because manslaughter by automobile is not included as a crime of violence under § 643B(a), the circuit court appropriately granted the petition for writ of habeas corpus and properly ordered that Respondent be awarded good conduct credits at the rate of ten days per month of his confinement in accordance with § 700(d)(3).
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS AFFIRMED. COSTS TO BE PAID BY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES.
Notes
. Unless othеrwise specified, all subsequent statutory references shall be to Maryland Code (1957, 1996 Repl.Vol., 1998 Supp.) Article 27.
. This statute was originally codified as § 436A. See Laws of Maryland, 1941, Ch. 414; Maryland Code (1939, 1947 Cum.Supp.) Article 27, § 436A. Thereafter, it appeared as § 455 of Article 27 of the 1951 Code. Finally, in 1957, the statute was re-codified as § 388 of Article 27.
. Section 388 had also been amended prior to 1975, first in 1949, see Laws of Maryland, 1949, Ch. 5, § 436A, and again in 1972, see Laws of Maryland, 1972, Ch.181, § 28. These changes, however, do not affect our analysis of the issues presented in this case.
. Prior to October 1, 1992, § 700 had provided that all inmates be assigned good conduct credits at the rate of five days per month; there was no distinction between "crimes of violence” and all other crimes. See Maryland Code (1957, 1992 Repl.Vol.) Article 27, § 700(d)(l)-(2).
. According to the State, "automobile manslaughter historically has not been utilized as a predicate conviction for a repeat offender sentence” under § 643B(b)-(d). Accepting this assertion to be true, we note that the reаson for such practice may not be one of pure prosecutorial discretion but rather the recognition by the prosecutorial arm of the State that manslaughter by automobile is excepted from § 643B(a) altogether. For, certainly, the State cannot reasonably argue that a § 388 offense is a crime of violence for one or more purposes, e.g. calculation of good conduct credits, under § 700(d), and enablement of crime victims to request that a parole hearing be open to the public, under Article 41, § 4-507(c), but not for another purpose, utilization as a predicate conviction for repeat offender sentencing, under § 643B(b)-(d). Indeed, as discussed in Part I, supra, the D.O.C. itself had for nearly five years considered § 388 offenses to be excluded from the § 643B(a) enumeration of crimes of violence for purposes of applying *95 § 700(d). We presume that the same interрretation was used for purposes of applying Article 41, § 4-507(c).
. As originally enacted, § 643B(b) requires that a person convicted for a fourth time of a crime of violence be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, so long as that person has served three separate terms of confinement on the three previous convictions. The original statute contained only subsections (a) and (b). See Laws of Maryland, 1975, Ch. 253. The Legislаture added subsection (c) in 1977, which mandates that a sentence of at least twenty-five years of imprisonment be imposed for a third conviction of a crime of violence, so long as the defendant has served at least one term of confinement as a result of a conviction of a crime of violence. See Laws of Maryland, 1977, Ch. 678, § 1. Current subsection (d), added in 1994, directs that a person convicted of a crime of violence for a second time, after having been incarcerated for the first offense, be confined to prison for not less than ten years. See Laws of Maryland, 1994, Chs. 716, § 1; 717, § 1.