Is ignorance really an offense?

[Randolpin]

We live in the world where we follow rules and regulations that control our lives. Is it really an offense when you violate a law due to ignorance of not knowing a it because all your heart, you know you are innocent?

[swansont]

You have a responsibility to know what the rules are.

[imatfaal]

Ignorance is never an offence, but acting in a manner proscribed by law in a state of ignorance can sometimes (almost always) be an offence. Some laws in some jurisdictions will use a reasonability test, others will look at could not know versus did not know, yet other have a criminal code which is presumed to be known, and yet others make it up on a case by case basis. On the whole, as swansonT said - it is presumed that there is knowledge of the law. The code based law countries use the ancient maxim that ignorance of the law is harmful; ie that individuals are taking risks by acting without knowledge of the law. The presumption in common law countries that people are aware of a correctly promulgated law is normally irrebuttable.

 

If you know you are innocent - then you must have considered that there is a guilt-innocence calculus in play; therefore most courts would have expected a reasonable person to have checked before acting. Ignorance is often only considered mitigation in sentencing when it can be shown that there was lack of knowledge/understanding that the action was the subject of legislation in any form or even of societal disapproval. Ignorance can also be a factor for mitigation if this ignorance was non-culpable

[Phi for All]

We live in the world where we follow rules and regulations that control our lives.

 

It's called a "society", and if you're complaining about its necessary guidelines for behavior, I would ask you to consider the alternatives.

[Randolpin]

 

It's called a "society", and if you're complaining about its necessary guidelines for behavior, I would ask you to consider the alternatives.

 

 

If you consider yourself in the neutral side, I think it's not an offense but is it really an offense naturally or not?

[swansont]

 

 

If you consider yourself in the neutral side, I think it's not an offense but is it really an offense naturally or not?

 

 

It's an error of omission, rather than of commission. You err by not knowing the rules, despite having an obligation to know them.

[Randolpin]

 

 

It's an error of omission, rather than of commission. You err by not knowing the rules, despite having an obligation to know them.

 

 

So ignorance is really an offense if we base on the standards of our worldy societies,

[swansont]

 

 

So ignorance is really an offense if we base on the standards of our worldy societies,

 

 

If you break the rules, ignorance is not an excuse.

[Randolpin]

 

 

If you break the rules, ignorance is not an excuse.

ignorance is only an offense in the society where you violated it.

[Phi for All]

So ignorance is really an offense if we base on the standards of our worldy societies,

 

There are some instances where an offense from ignorance can't be overlooked. I once made a U-turn on a bridge in Vienna (so wide I didn't realize I was on a bridge), and apparently the signs are posted at the beginning (it was a long bridge too) and it's just understood by everybody there that you don't EVER make a U-turn on ANY bridge (and most of the time you can't, or it would be obviously a stupid thing to do). I didn't seem to be doing anything dangerous, I had the room and the opportunity for the maneuver. But people honked at me, pedestrians looked at me like I was a lunatic, and if the police had seen me, I probably would have had a very harsh punishment while on vacation.

 

In general though, ignorance is ethically offensive only when it's persistent and willful, I think. Most societies are willing to teach you if you're willing to learn.

[Randolpin]

We are only innocents in the eyes of a neutral looker

[Phi for All]

We are only innocents in the eyes of a neutral looker

 

This seems trivially untrue.

[Country Boy]

We live in the world where we follow rules and regulations that control our lives. Is it really an offense when you violate a law due to ignorance of not knowing a it because all your heart, you know you are innocent?

 

Saying that you violated a law out of ignorance of the law is NOT the same as being "innocent". If you "know you are innocent" even after being apprised of the law, you are being arrogant and claiming to be above the law.

[John Cuthber]

It's not that ignorance is a crime, it's that ignorance is not a defence.

 

Consider the simplistic case of the alternative

"Oh! is killing people to steal their money forbidden? Sorry- I didn't know that".

[iNow]

What bothers me more is ignorance even in the face of correction and information... Willful ignorance and the backfire effect: https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/05/13/backfire-effect-mcraney/

[Phi for All]

It's not that ignorance is a crime, it's that ignorance is not a defence.

 

For much the same reason, I make a distinction between reasons and excuses. One often has reasons for doing something bad or unlawful, but almost never has an excuse for doing so.

[imatfaal]

 

For much the same reason, I make a distinction between reasons and excuses. One often has reasons for doing something bad or unlawful, but almost never has an excuse for doing so.

 

Phi you might be interested in the legal niceties of excuse and justification. These act as defences against conviction and seem the same at first glance; an excuse is a judicial acceptance that whilst the act was committed there existed circumstances which mean that the accused should be excused whereas a justification means that no morally/legally culpable act was actually committed as the actions were justified. For example in the case of a homicide - a mental disorder might provide an excuse whereas legitimate self-defence would provide a justification.

 

The rule of thumb is that society would grundingly accept the commission of an excusable act but would almost encourage the commission of a justifiable act

[Ophiolite]

Lawyers, solicitors and barristers are ignorant of large swathes of law. It is therefore rather ridiculous to place upon individual citizens, with no legal training, full responsibility for knowing the law. Or rather, while it may be right to note their responsibility for this, we would be insane to expect it and justice would rarely be served if the system did not take this into account - which, to a greater or lesser extent, it seems to do.

[dimreepr]

Lawyers, solicitors and barristers are ignorant of large swathes of law. It is therefore rather ridiculous to place upon individual citizens, with no legal training, full responsibility for knowing the law. Or rather, while it may be right to note their responsibility for this, we would be insane to expect it and justice would rarely be served if the system did not take this into account - which, to a greater or lesser extent, it seems to do.

 

Good point, here's a rather extreme example:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/12062942/Facebook-fly-tippers-hiring-someone-to-take-rubbish-away-could-land-you-a-5000-fine.html

[John Cuthber]

 

Good point, here's a rather extreme example:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/12062942/Facebook-fly-tippers-hiring-someone-to-take-rubbish-away-could-land-you-a-5000-fine.html

Indeed!

What could be more reasonable than not knowing something published in a national newspaper?

 

There's a general expectation that paying someone to do something illegal is illegal.

 

If something looks too good to be true (like, for example, a very cheap waste disposal service) it probably isn't true.

Don't most adults know that?

 

The bit about lawyers is a red herring.

Nobody expects you to know all the laws- they just expect you to check that something isn't banned before you do it, otherwise, as I said earlier claiming ignorance would be a way to get away with murder.

[dimreepr]

Indeed!

What could be more reasonable than not knowing something published in a national newspaper?

 

Not knowing it before it's published.

[Ophiolite]

Indeed!

What could be more reasonable than not knowing something published in a national newspaper?

 

There's a general expectation that paying someone to do something illegal is illegal.

 

If something looks too good to be true (like, for example, a very cheap waste disposal service) it probably isn't true.

Don't most adults know that?

 

The bit about lawyers is a red herring.

Nobody expects you to know all the laws- they just expect you to check that something isn't banned before you do it, otherwise, as I said earlier claiming ignorance would be a way to get away with murder.

This is just elitist, patronising crap. I would have expected better of you.

 

Let's take the average person in the UK. Income stretched to breaking point. Trying hard to do the right thing: dispose of rubbish without dumping it in the environment. Here's about a small company that can take care of it for a reasonable amount. (When you are living on £200 a week, you don't appreciate why it would take £100 to get rid of your rubbish.) You never got taught critical thinking skills. You've got plenty else to bother about, so you go for it, believing you are doing yourself, the contractor and the environment a favour.

 

Excuse the vitriol, but really!

[MigL]

Ignorance is not a valid defense in cases where a perpetrator SHOULD know that an offence/crime is being committed.

I.E. killing, robbing, disobeying POSTED speed limits, etc.

 

In matters of environmental law, at least in North America ( don't know about Europe ), ignorance can be a valid defense.

If you are unaware of a specific regulation, as long as reasonable steps are taken with due diligence, you will not be charged for contravening said regulation.

[John Cuthber]

This is just elitist, patronising crap. I would have expected better of you.

 

Let's take the average person in the UK. Income stretched to breaking point. Trying hard to do the right thing: dispose of rubbish without dumping it in the environment. Here's about a small company that can take care of it for a reasonable amount. (When you are living on £200 a week, you don't appreciate why it would take £100 to get rid of your rubbish.) You never got taught critical thinking skills. You've got plenty else to bother about, so you go for it, believing you are doing yourself, the contractor and the environment a favour.

 

Excuse the vitriol, but really!

Did you spot the critical phrase in the Telegraph article or the vital word in their headline?

It's the bit that allows the courts to take account of those sorts of things.

 

Perhaps it's elitist of me to expect you to read and understand it it.

 

Another interesting question is why were they not taught some sort of critical thinking?

[Ophiolite]

Did you spot the critical phrase in the Telegraph article or the vital word in their headline?

It's the bit that allows the courts to take account of those sorts of things.

And that is precisely what you declared in your post, through implication, was unnecessary.

 

Perhaps it's elitist of me to expect you to read and understand it it.

I read it and I understood it. I read your post and understood it as written. If you meant to say something else then I shall be elitist for the moment and suggest you need to learn to write more clearly.