Is ignorance of the law an excuse?

[Mr Skeptic]

To my knowledge, we mostly follow the ancient Roman tradition that ignorance of the law is no excuse. There do seem to be a few exceptions however. Even so, the amount of laws we have is tremendous, and no one could possibly in their lifetime know all the laws. Every last one of us is ignorant of the law, from lawyers to judges to the very people writing the laws -- some of whom seem to be voting on laws they haven't even bothered to read. Oh, and us regular civilians too.

 

Back in the day, there weren't all that many laws, and it wasn't crazy to expect people to know the law. But now that's not even possible. Is it really ethical to expect the impossible from people? This is now a fault of the laws, not of the people. On the other hand, the original reason for this tradition remains -- the alternative is that willful ignorance of the law becomes expedient, and the necessity to prove that someone was aware of the law.

 

 

Maybe this should be in politics.

[John Cuthber]

If you plan to do something, it is your responsibility to check that it is legal first.

[ecoli]

So willfull ignorance shouldn't be punished? Sounds like a thin line to cross.

[Mr Skeptic]

If you plan to do something, it is your responsibility to check that it is legal first.

 

Only if it is possible to do so... Isn't it the responsibility of the lawmakers to ensure that it is possible to know the law, before people can be held accountable for not knowing it?

[Phi for All]

So let's say your car breaks down on a county road outside the city. A passerby has a truck with a hitch, you have a chain with hooks, so the passerby offers to hook the chain from your bumper to his hitch and tow your car, with you behind the steering wheel, to the nearest garage. Cell phone coverage isn't available this far from the city.

 

Along the way, the county sheriff pulls you both over and tells you that the law says you have to use a tow bar when towing another vehicle. Is it ethical to expect you to check the county laws regarding towed vehicles before you attempt this handy solution?

[the tree]

If you plan to do something, it is your responsibility to check that it is legal first.

Really? If I feel like bursting into a spontaneous dance number in the street - while there are few people around so no-one is in danger, and without musical accompanyment so that I couldn't be breaking noise control levels - do I really have to find out if there's a law against dancing in the street?

[jackson33]

Only if it is possible to do so... Isn't it the responsibility of the lawmakers to ensure that it is possible to know the law, before people can be held accountable for not knowing it? [/Quote]

 

Skeptic; Your going to be held accountable for breaking law only, the not knowing then your excuse (no attorney would try that). Where this and often does come in, is for the punishment and/or a fine phase. Said another way, if there is no question (defense) that the law was broken, you would be best served in pleading guilty and if you have a plausible excuse for ignorance, their normally would be no consequences to worry about.

 

I understand the premise of your thread, but not knowing or understanding fully the law (most common), simply can't be allowed as an excuse. The best examples, would be while traveling/visiting in other Countries or people traveling/visiting the US from elsewhere and somewhat between States, where they (laws) can vary dramatically. I'm sure you know most examples I could list.

 

 

So let's say your car breaks down on a county road outside the city. A passerby has a truck with a hitch, you have a chain with hooks, so the passerby offers to hook the chain from your bumper to his hitch and tow your car, with you behind the steering wheel, to the nearest garage. Cell phone coverage isn't available this far from the city.

 

Along the way, the county sheriff pulls you both over and tells you that the law says you have to use a tow bar when towing another vehicle. Is it ethical to expect you to check the county laws regarding towed vehicles before you attempt this handy solution? [/Quote]

 

Phil; The same answer to Skeptic would apply here, but enforcement of law should be considered. Towing in a City, where many things could be harmed if the chain breaks or on a deserted road are very different things. Of all people County Sheriff's are very much aware of this, none likely to ticket (most would, in some way help) and I would think anything making it to judge would be thrown out.

 

Really? If I feel like bursting into a spontaneous dance number in the street - while there are few people around so no-one is in danger, and without musical accompanyment so that I couldn't be breaking noise control levels - do I really have to find out if there's a law against dancing in the street? [/Quote]

 

tree; Yes...and it might require a permit in most urban areas ("in the street"). There are many ways to be harmed/hurt, other than physically.

[AzurePhoenix]

I understand the premise of your thread, but not knowing or understanding fully the law (most common), simply can't be allowed as an excuse. The best examples, would be while traveling/visiting in other Countries or people traveling/visiting the US from elsewhere and somewhat between States, where they (laws) can vary dramatically. I'm sure you know most examples I could list.

-

tree; Yes...and it might require a permit in most urban areas ("in the street"). There are many ways to be harmed/hurt, other than physically.

the variance of laws between states I think is a prime example of WHY ignorance is a valid excuse. More so concerning obscure or quaintly outdated local laws restricting matters that do no harm. Like dancing politely somewhere with room to do so, or most of all when you have absolutely no means of finding out otherwise like in phi's example. There's a difference between wrong-doing and breaking frivolous laws, and when someone breaks such a law they should either be excused immediately (and warned if the law actually is relevant) or the law itself should be raised for review as to whether it's still viable.

 

Personally I feel that any set of rules should serve as a set of guidelines to direct people who lack relative experience or don't have the capacity to work out the situation for themselves, not to restrain those people who might be capable of making better choices than those dictated by the letter of the law. And of course a police force should be upheld to observe for circumstances when someone endangers or flouts the rights of others. And when flouting occurs that isn't obvious, the flouters should be alerted to their wrong-doing, but not necessarily reprimanded.

[Double K]

Very complicated topic.

On one hand, the law is 'supposed' to be blind, in that it should apply equally to all cases.

 

On the other hand, do you really want a murderer or heinous crime committer let off because he "didn't know" it was illegal to do it. As crazy as that sounds there are cases where that could be claimed.

 

I think any reasonable judge should dismiss cases in an appropriate fashion, such as

Someone caught dancing without a permit without intent to cause any harm or obtain financial gain. Dismissed!

 

One major problem today, I believe is that the jails are privatised and "petty" crime is punitively enforced. The courts are clogged with people who have committed mis-demeaners and petty crime and it's a waste of resources, time, and effectively criminalising and marginalising people, often based on economic & in the case of 'ignorance' of the law, educational status.

 

I think there is no way that any reasonable individual can know every facet of law, even lawyers have teams and interns to help them research on a case either for defence or prosecution.

 

Unfortunately the ultimate decision is left to the judge, and this can vary greatly depending on their interpretation of the law and many other factors.

[John Cuthber]

Really? If I feel like bursting into a spontaneous dance number in the street - while there are few people around so no-one is in danger, and without musical accompanyment so that I couldn't be breaking noise control levels - do I really have to find out if there's a law against dancing in the street?

 

You don't have to, but if the police turn up and arrest you (perhaps because you don't have a public entertainment license) that's your fault; you should have checked.

(Incidentally, if it was me dancing it would be bad enough to count as "Behaviour likely to lead to a breach of the peace")

 

Anyway the alternative is silly too. Imagine a world where ignorance is viewed as an excuse.

In this weird world I kill someone because I don't like them. The law probably considers that this would count as murder.

If I were to say "Oh, sorry, I didn't realise that was illegal- nobody ever told me" I could get off without charge.

[padren]

Ignorance isn't automatically an excuse, but it can/is/should be taken into consideration. It really depends on whether the ignorance is willful, reckless against common sense, or just plain old innocently being unaware of an obscure law.

 

It's worth noting that a school zone has a specific speed limit, but if there is no sign posted you can claim ignorance - it's up to the city to make sure signs are posted so you are duly informed. It's a sticky issue, open to abuse on both sides, and pretty much requires case by case common sense.

 

I don't think one can easily make sweeping generalizations that hold true on the topic.

[Edtharan]

I don't think ignorance of the law should be an excuse, but if you are caught breaking the law, there is one factor that seems to have been left out of this discussion (although jackson33 did sort of bring it up): the arresting officer(s).

 

Although we have people employed to create and pass judgment on those broght before them for breaking the laws, there is the police nad other persons society (or the leaders) have appointed to enforce the laws. These people have some discressionary powers to let people off with a warning if they think it is warrented (but not in all cases). IF they believe that harm does not come from the activity, and the people involved were truly ignorant, it is possible that they could be let off with a warning.

 

Also, even though there is a law and the arresting officer does deem that action must be taken, no all actions lead to cout apperences or criminal charges.

 

There is quite a degree of flexability in how the laws are enforced that if ignorace is truly involved, the full force of the law does not have to be invoked.

[Mr Skeptic]

Just to clarify, I'm not talking about ignorance of the law in general. I'm talking about ignorance of the law when it is known to be impossible to know the law, due to the law itself. This can be due to sheer volume of the laws, or because of secret laws. While legally speaking ignorance of the law being considered a valid excuse is unlikely to happen, morally speaking I think that, in these circumstances, the fault is with the law and not with the person who is ignorant of it since he necessarily has to be ignorant of it.

[ewmon]

The OP is right in that it's pretty much impossible to know all the laws, but the alternatives are: 1) that hardly any law would be enforceable if authorities had to prove that the accused both knew the law and violated it, and 2) people would spend their entire lives learning all federal, state, county, and municipal laws. Realistically though, the obscurity of the laws and the knowledge of a reasonable and prudent person engaging in an activity is considered as a part of human nature when adjudicating guilt. A deliberating jury would realize that none of them (or a reasonable and prudent person) knew of such a law, so why should the accused. This is not exactly jury nullification, but it's pretty close.

[Genecks]

I don't see it as impossible to not know a law. It has to be written down. Someone who wrote it at least knows it. And, of course, it more than likely needs to be put into effect in order to be enforced. Otherwise, the person who made the law would have to enforce the law and judge the person who broke the law. Notice that there is a separation between the judicial and executive branch in America. Thus, two people have to know that law. If it could be proven that the law was not available to the public, then it could be overruled in a just society.

 

For American taxes...

 

Truthfully, I might have had over $600 in my bank account, been an independent.... and may have had to pay taxes.. I'm not sure.. The money was given to me... But since I wasn't taught about taxes in high school, I admittedly am purely ignorant as to when I have to pay taxes. Yeah, if I've worked and made some money, then some of my wages go to the government if I make over a certain amount. That's typically common sense.

 

I think people should be allowed to admit ignorance on taxes. I really do.

All these criminals from the past should not have been put away for tax evasion, because they could have easily claimed ignorance.

 

When people start teaching about when you have to pay taxes... or how you go about finding out when you have to pay taxes... and they implement that in a high school curriculum... then people can no longer claim they're ignorant.

 

About the only laws I learned from high school is that involvement with illicit drugs is illegal, prostitutes are illegal, child abuse is illegal, underage drinking is illegal, driving without a license is illegal, slander and libel are illegal, harassment (I'm not sure how to define harassment) can be illegal, murder is illegal, and attacking people without the act of defending yourself after being hit first is illegal. Things that are in the high school code of conduct... I think it's such bullshit that if you defend yourself and kill the other person in the process that can be considered manslaughter. I wasn't taught that in high school. I'm just defending myself and making sure I don't get killed. Somehow I walk into a society and that's a rule.

 

Do you see what I mean?

 

In Illinois there has often been a saying: You are guilty until proven innocent.

Hence, we really want to get the corrupt politicians in Illinois out of office.

 

When educators start teaching law (or how to determine when/if an action is legal/illegal) in high schools rather than "government and the constitution," then people will have a harder time claiming ignorance.

 

So let's say your car breaks down on a county road outside the city. A passerby has a truck with a hitch, you have a chain with hooks, so the passerby offers to hook the chain from your bumper to his hitch and tow your car, with you behind the steering wheel, to the nearest garage. Cell phone coverage isn't available this far from the city.

 

Along the way, the county sheriff pulls you both over and tells you that the law says you have to use a tow bar when towing another vehicle. Is it ethical to expect you to check the county laws regarding towed vehicles before you attempt this handy solution?

 

The persons should (in a just society) be allowed to walk away innocent and ignorant. Unfortunately, we don't live in a just society. The officer could get away with fining both persons, especially if he/she needs to meet some weird "quota." Quota means to limit something... But we're really going for a requirement to hand out tickets to and/or fine so many people and get so much money. Many police work for the government.. and the government needs to pay its salary..

Edited June 25, 2010 by Genecks

[John Cuthber]

"I think people should be allowed to admit ignorance on taxes. I really do.

All these criminals from the past should not have been put away for tax evasion, because they could have easily claimed ignorance."

 

So you think it's better to let criminals go free than to jail them.

An interesting position.

 

Since you are posting here about tax you know it exists and that there are circumstances where you should pay it- particularly where you receive money from another party.

 

OK, you just admitted to knowing about the tax; you now need to find out how much (if any) you need to pay.

 

Talking about what you learned in high school has nothing to do with it; people learn things in the rest of life.

[THEBRAIN]

I think you have to seriously consider the number of laws in effect. Everyone is ignorant of the "laws". There is a law in Alabama that states you can bring your wife to the courthouse steps on Sunday and beat her, so if I do this will I be arrested? More than likely so. So you not only have to look at people not knowing all the laws because of the quantities, but you need to view how many un-necessary laws there are. If we abolish the laws that are no good to society anymore, than we might have more data space to store all the laws that are good for society. Thus ignorance would no longer be an issue and we could resume life as we know it.

[Severian]

I agree that ignorance of the law is no excuse. But this statement is used to help determine guilt, not sentencing. If you break a law, you are guilty of breaking that law, irrespective of your knowledge. This seems obvious to me.

 

However, I would expect ignorance of a law (if it is reasonable) to be taken into account for sentencing.

[jackson33]

There is a law in Alabama that states you can bring your wife to the courthouse steps on Sunday and beat her, so if I do this will I be arrested? More than likely so. [/Quote]

 

Brain; Yes, but for anything from disturbing the peace to endangerment. No law, any State, from any time period, supercedes precedence of current law. Now if the local district attorney was stupid enough the CHARGE the accused under an old law, the Court actually takes the case and a trail were held (none of this would happen), then it is possible you could be found not guilty. Along this line, in the US any legislated law, Federal Court Decision or even an Amendment only keeps a State from enforcing their own laws, not having the law itself. In many cases (abortion/alcohol/speed limits) laws remained on the books and text cases or challenges to Federal Laws themselves have successfully overturn the Federal Law.

 

If we abolish the laws that are no good to society anymore, than we might have more data space to store all the laws that are good for society.[/Quote]

 

State Law Libraries are full of outdated, unenforced or ignored laws, but each State has a system to abolish these laws and it would be a waste of time to properly dispose of law that are already being ignored....

 

Thus ignorance would no longer be an issue and we could resume life as we know it.[/Quote]

 

Not likely; Very, very few people are aware of 10% of common law in the first place, then what's is being enforced, or not, in any of the thousand of jurisdictions (City/County/States). For instance most people might know, use of illegal drugs are against the law, but have no idea what all drugs are in fact legal/illegal or enforced in other areas of the Country or World. Then in the San Francisco Bay area, where many drug laws are not enforced, may in fact be enforced in Sacramento, a short distance from each other.

 

Personally I feel that any set of rules should serve as a set of guidelines to direct people who lack relative experience or don't have the capacity to work out the situation for themselves, not to restrain those people who might be capable of making better choices than those dictated by the letter of the law. And of course a police force should be upheld to observe for circumstances when someone endangers or flouts the rights of others. And when flouting occurs that isn't obvious, the flouters should be alerted to their wrong-doing, but not necessarily reprimanded. [/Quote]

 

Phoenix; Sorry, I didn't see your post earlier, but a simple digest of law is simply not possible. We all learn to some degree right and wrong from our environment (family/friends/education) and so long as we accept those principles,stay in the area and the law doesn't change people will get along just fine. Since major crimes are generally understood, even moving around the country or world, the different understandings are close enough to keep most people out of trouble.

 

Flouting, to begin with is subjective to the person being verbally attacked and for the most part subject to the 1st A, freedom of speech, with certain restriction. If it turns into "Hate" speech or some person or group has been harmed (liable) different laws and recourses are available.