Ignorance of the law

[Mark of Zorro]

But I do believe if it came to the point that self defence is not enough, the law would regard the one being attacked, and not the attacker.

You believe. But you don't know.

The moonshine is not as illegal as the drugs in Denmark.

Is khat a drug? Is tobacco? Coffee? Caffeine? Beer?

I have no idea if khat is illegal here in Japan and I have no idea how I would find out.

I know its illegal in Denmark only by inference. I found articles about khat houses being closed down in Denmark, but none of the articles clearly mentioned the law it was done under.

For many reasons, including Denmark being a small country, you may be more familiar with your country's laws. Many of us don't have that luxury. Hence my complaint.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

That is a stupid law. If a burglar enters my home, I can legally shoot him dead. The fact that a burglar enters an occupied dwelling is considered evidence that he intended bodily harm to the occupants. If you live in my state of the US, this is a good law to know before you think about a career as a burglar.

If someone enters your home, how do you know he is a burglar? How does someone entering your home know its occupied?

Of course these are general questions. Your car might always be in the driveway and lights on if you are home. You might always answer the door if someone knocks. The same cannot be said to be true of everyone.

I certainly lean toward the side of self-defense and toward the side of America over countries that basically demand you become a victim, but America is not exactly right in my view either, and of course, the law varies by state.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

Since I don't know Japanese law on the subjects of self-defense and burglary, could I just assume that US law applies there?

 

[Msnoir]

You believe. But you don't know.
Is khat a drug? Is tobacco? Coffee? Caffeine Beer?
I have no idea if khat is illegal here in Japan and I have no idea how I would find out.
I know its illegal in Denmark only by inference. I found articles about khat houses being closed down in Denmark, but none of the articles clearly mentioned the law it was done under.
For many reasons, including Denmark being a small country, you may be more familiar with your country's laws. Many of us don't have that luxury. Hence my complaint.

I must say, I haven't paid attention to most of the laws in Denmark. Because its a part of my upbringing. But I did find the law and the list about drugs in Denmark. Its a really long list.
http://sundhedsstyrelsen.dk/en/medicines/regulation/company-authorisations-and-registrations/euphoriant-substances/lists

But yes, Denmark is a small country. It take approximately 3 to 4 hours, to drive from the boarder to the top of Denmark. That is also one of the reason, we are teached a lot, about other countries. And one of the reason, other countries is not teached about Denmark, except about the Vikings. And now I was sidestepping.

 

[JohnGrey]

From the abstract legal standpoint, mens rea is a requirement for culpability. That said, the weight of common law answers that, in most cases, ignorance of the law is not a valid defense, most especially where civil law is in accord with natural law, such as the prohibition against murder, or in cases where presumption of apprehension of just conduct, irrespective of knowledge of a formal prescription of that conduct, is judged to objectively reasonable.

 

[WonkoTheSane]

I have no idea if khat is illegal here in Japan and I have no idea how I would find out.

Go to your local cho office to ask, or any police station.

Or you could just read the relevant laws. They're published and there are websites with translations.

If it's still unclear you can ask an attorney.


Sent from my fingers using the internet.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

From the abstract legal standpoint, mens rea is a requirement for culpability. That said, the weight of common law answers that, in most cases, ignorance of the law is not a valid defense, most especially where civil law is in accord with natural law, such as the prohibition against murder, or in cases where presumption of apprehension of just conduct, irrespective of knowledge of a formal prescription of that conduct, is judged to objectively reasonable.

Mens rea doesn't mean you have to intend to break the law, but only that you intend to do the act that is illegal.

Since we're now throwing Latin legal terms around, the type of crime you talk about, one that is inherently evil or immoral, such as murder or theft, is known as malum in se.

The other general type of a violation of law is known as malum prohibitum, something that is only illegal because it's been declared by relevant authorities to be illegal. A good example would be laws against jaywalking.

My impression is that the OP may be more concerned about malum prohibitum offenses, since presumably malum in se crimes cross cultural lines and would be considered illegal everywhere. Even in the former category, ignorance of the law is no excuse (in the US at least), although genuine ignorance and remorse might help you in sentencing.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Go to your local cho office to ask, or any police station.

I suppose I could also go to Afghanistan with a target painted on my back too!

No. This gaijin is not going to walk into a J police station and ask questions about the legality of substances. Forget it.

Plus, having dealt with the police here, I bet they would all have different answers, the most popular one being "I don't know".

Or you could just read the relevant laws. They're published and there are websites with translations.

Prove it.

If it's still unclear you can ask an attorney.

You don't just "ask" an attorney anything. They expect a fee. And they tend to come up with different answers too.

 

[WonkoTheSane]

I suppose I could also go to Afghanistan with a target painted on my back too!

No. This gaijin is not going to walk into a J police station and ask questions about the legality of substances. Forget it.

Plus, having dealt with the police here, I bet they would all have different answers, the most popular one being "I don't know".



Prove it.



You don't just "ask" an attorney anything. They expect a fee. And they tend to come up with different answers too.

You want me to prove that laws are written down?? Seriously? Google Japanese criminal code.

If you want to know the law and can't be bothered to do it a free way, ask an attorney and pay the fee.

You said you don't know how to find out, I gave you three ways. Now you know.


Sent from my fingers using the internet.

 

[JohnGrey]

Mens rea doesn't mean you have to intend to break the law, but only that you intend to do the act that is illegal.

That is not strictly correct. In modern jurisprudence, the requirement to establish mens rea is the reasonable establishment that an act was undertaken with foreknowledge of what the outcome would be, or with reckless disregard of the outcome. I apologize if I was giving the impression of conflating mens rea with criminal intent, though ultimately the former is the root of the latter.

Since we're now throwing Latin legal terms around, the type of crime you talk about, one that is inherently evil or immoral, such as murder or theft, is known as malum in se The other general type of a violation of law is known as malum prohibitum, something that is only illegal because it's been declared by relevant authorities to be illegal. A good example would be laws against jaywalking.

I saw True Grit as well.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

In essence we're saying the same thing, JohnGrey. Your legal statement is encompassed within my phrase "act that is illegal." Generally, one of the elements of an illegal act is that it be "undertaken with foreknowledge of what the outcome would be, or with reckless disregard of the outcome." An act undertaken without intending the outcome or recklessness would probably not be illegal. There are exceptions.

 

[edogaijin]

Laws are often common sense. If it's something trivial, I think that the officers should be understanding (such as a local law in Japan regarding cat curfews... I am seriously not making this up). I think it only becomes a real excuse when it comes down to cultural norms rather than laws proper.