Ignorance of the law

[Mark of Zorro]

I have heard it said many times that ignorance of the law is not an excuse. But do people actually think about that or just repeat it? And did this truism get started because lawmakers and judges are so arrogant as to believe that the people should know all about them without them doing a thing to spread the word of what laws and decisions they made today?

I got started on this after watching the Star Trek TNG episode about the Ido (eedo) planet where they have one punishment for even the smallest infraction and its death. But nobody bothered to tell the Enterprise away team about the law, and when Wesley overturned some flower pots and broke a small greenhouse accidently, they tried to kill him for it.

Every country has a mess of crazy laws on the books. Its hard enough to know what crazy laws your own country has given the mess of them. The problem is compounded when you visit a foreign country. But what country even so much as has a class for school age students to teach them the law? What country sends out fliers to inform citizens of the law? What country has a welcoming committee to inform foreign guests of the law?

Most laws that are actually relevant and enforced are pretty common sense I suppose but many are not. Why would you know its illegal to brew your own beer in Japan except at very low alcohol contents? Why would you know the federal AOC of 13 is precluded by prefectural laws making it 16,17 or 18? Why would you know that you cannot renew your international driver's licence after one year here, but need to get a Japanese license? Why would you know you need to show your documents to a cop on demand when a competing law says you don't?

I think ignorance of the law is an excuse. Its just a matter of if one can be truly believed that they were ignorant.

 

[theBrokenMonkey]

Is this not where the concept of "intention" comes into play?

I'd say it is up to the foreigner, just as it is up to all local people as well, to abide the law.
With just a small amount if research you are usually able to get a pretty good picture of the laws that are not common sense when going abroad.

Of course there is always a problem of laws that may exist without actually being enforced, but that is a somewhat different matter...

So, no, I don't think one should be able to claim ignorance as an excuse for committing a crime. Offences perhaps could be excused to some extend.

 

[nekojita]

If travelling to an unfamiliar country, I'd normally check the Foreign Office website which usually lists the major issues a traveller is likely to run into - especially if there's any that might not be immediately obvious.

If you are an adult with internet access, you should be able to figure out that rules regarding things like sex, drugs, alcohol, weapons, may be different in different countries and to check what those rules are. I have never tried homebrewing but I found what the rules are for the UK and for Japan via wikipedia in about five seconds. You are free to think the laws are ridiculous - especially when they are. You are also free to make your own decisions about the risk/benefit balance in terms of deciding to break those laws.

I would be sympathetic if the rule was truly outside what might be considered obvious, or if the punishment was excessive relative to the 'crime', or if there were additional factors (person was lied to by a third party who manipulated them into doing the illegal thing). Someone who occasionally brews up a bit of beer for personal consumption which technically goes over the 1% limit is hardly a threat to society. Someone who brings a Vicks inhaler with them on a trip to Japan could well have not realised that it is banned (due to pseudoephedrine).

In either of those cases, anything more than "X is not allowed, we are confiscating it, don't do it again" is excessive.

 

[SomeCallMeChris]

The line 'Ignorance of the law is no excuse' is not usually meant as a general statement. It's a statement of jurisprudence. While it's a basic principal of jurisprudence, it's not universal. The principle presumes that a person could reasonably have informed themselves about the law if they had cared to do so, and there -are- cases where that has been considered by the courts not to be the case. There are also laws were you have to have criminal intent for it to be a crime (although even if not criminal you may still have to pay a civil fine for breaking the law unknowingly.)

If ignorance of the law was generally accepted as an excuse, then, even assuming all testimony under oath actually was truthful, people could just carefully and willfully learn as little as possible about the law and never be accountable for anything other than the greatest and most obvious crimes. It may create difficult situations when foolish laws are passed, but it's not practical to do it any other way.

Ignorantia juris non excusat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In terms of nekojita's point about disproportionate punishment - ignorance is an acceptable mitigating factor in sentencing (only down to the mandatory minimums, which can be severe.)

 

[letianchen]

I would consider on the intent ( if its even judgable and how severe the actual crime is) If it something that is nor harming anyone in a potential way but is something rather minor, a small fine or a warning given should be fine. There are probably a million laws in Canada I have no clue about, but I think if I were to commit any of the ones I dont know about it would be really minor and not worth making a big fuss over. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Tamayo]

This question is somewhat of a gray area, I think. I believe that this has less to do with the person who broke the law than the law itself.

There are people out there who are inconceivably ignorant and don't know about or understand things that most people consider to be common sense. There are times where I would want someone who's unknowingly broken a law should be punished more severely than someone who intentionally broke it on the grounds of being a complete idiot.

There are absolutely stupid laws which aren't known to the general public and aren't enforced by the authorities -- These are laws for which I consider ignorance as a legitimate excuse. There are also laws out there that we learn about as children in our very early years and grow up knowing and understanding -- These are laws for which I feel there is no excuse for breaking. To really fix the issue, we'd have to get rid of a huge number of stupid laws and then put a little thought into just how far into the "common sense" side of the scale we're willing to be lenient with.

I really don't see that ever happening, though (At least in my case, living in America). America is a country full of people who exploit our laws with loopholes and technicalities. To abolish the ridiculous laws and this idea of our laws having fluid meanings would be to abolish the kind of people who will sue a restaurant chain for not accommodating their gigantic *** with an enormous chair, or who will sue an establishment for not having a bathroom mirror that's high/low enough for them on the grounds of "discrimination". The plebs here breed and vote, so I don't see an end to it. This is one of the bigger reasons for my interest in moving the hell out.

Edit: What the... *** is censored?

 

[dsvlee]

In China. If a suspect says this, he would be punished more seriously. So if someone want to show he is not farmliar with law, then he should act for it, not say it. Another thing is, Chinese judge would take "ignorance of law thing" into his consider. Sometimes, CHinese judges would see if this suspect violate the law for the first of the time, if he means to do it, if the case have a bad effect to society and if the victims hate him.If all of the above questions are not, then, the suspect can have a big chance of reprieve.

So in China, ignorance of law can be understood and also supported by law.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

If ignorance of the law was generally accepted as an excuse, then, even assuming all testimony under oath actually was truthful, people could just carefully and willfully learn as little as possible about the law and never be accountable for anything other than the greatest and most obvious crimes. It may create difficult situations when foolish laws are passed, but it's not practical to do it any other way.

There is a practical way. For starters, all citizens should be educated on the law beginning in elementary school, and by the end of junior high, all citizens should be pretty well versed in things like knowing its illegal to harbor a fugitive from the law, its illegal to hire someone to kill for you, its illegal to blackmail, cyber bully, make threats even on-line, sext under 18, or coerce another into sexual relations, a whole bunch of things I am sure that high school students are not fully aware of but could be if the state took the time to educate them. Surely knowing these things is more important than algebra?

Also visitors and immigrants should at least be given pamphlets on some finer pointers of the law. In fact, all citizens should be given a book concerning the law. And if every adult citizen had such a book, then I would not care less if they refused to read it. If they did, their ignorance of the law would really not be an excuse anymore. But expecting people to go research the law in the absence of any conscise source explaining all the finer points any citizen should know, is simply too much.

I believe it is truly the perogative of the government to educate the citizens on these matters.

 

[SomeCallMeChris]

There is a practical way.

Also take into account that people -can- lie even under oath.

But this has been accepted as the only practical way to run a justice system for centuries. I'm not going to argue it with you.

You can go find philosophy professors or law professors (philosophy of law professors maybe?) and argue it with them. Or just be practical and start lobbying to change the law if it's that important to you.

I was just pointing out that it's an accepted tenet of law with a long history. If you are going to argue it here you should read the entire wikipedia page at least if not some of the references it was formed from to see why the principle is considered essential.

 

[Tamayo]

For starters, all citizens should be educated on the law beginning in elementary school, and by the end of junior high, all citizens should be pretty well versed in things like...

I actually quite like this idea, Zorro. It seems a little stupid that we should we expected to abide the law when we've never, at any point in our lives, been formally schooled on it, even briefly (at least officially).

 

[ARM01]

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it - but police generally just have a word for minor transgressions, pointing out what you did is not acceptable. If you do something serious and claim you didn't know it was illegal - then you're just asking for what's coming your way. If you drink a beer or light a cigarette in the wrong place, where it's technically illegal, probably won't result in more than a ticking off --- but if you have a bag full of ecstasy pills at your house, because like everybody takes them! It probably won't wash.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

but if you have a bag full of ecstasy pills at your house, because like everybody takes them! It probably won't wash.

Pop quiz: What if someone gave you a khat plant as a gift? What would you do? Don't look on the net before answering. This person is your friend, at you door, with a khat plant in his hand. What do you do?

Same question, only its a bottle of moonshine.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

This is absurd. If ignorance of the law were an excuse, the law would hardly ever be enforced. A defendant would only have to plead, "I didn't know," and he'd be off the hook.

"I didn't know it was illegal to take that car which I found obligingly running next to the curb."

"I didn't know it was illegal to run a Ponzi scheme."

"I didn't know it was illegal to rape that woman. She was asking for it by wearing that short skirt."

"I didn't know it was illegal to kill a man I caught in bed with my wife."

Even Dr. Seuss couldn't make a fable out of an ignorance-is-excuse society.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

This is absurd.

What is absurd is that you did not read the thread, apparently, as you are completely ignorant of some important caveats laid down.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

The subject of this thread is your poll. Your poll asks whether ignorance of the law should be an excuse. I saw no caveats.

Your opening post concludes like this: "I think ignorance of the law is an excuse. Its just a matter of if one can be truly believed that they were ignorant."

This change would make the search for the defendant's state of mind the central issue in the case-- let's say our hypothetical case could be any one of the examples I gave in my last post.

The defendant is always presumed innocent. He is the only one who truly, directly knows his own state of mind. Yet, he has a Fifth Amendment right not to testify at all. If he refuses to testify, there is no way to make him do so. So what evidence would you have to convict him?

Remember, he has the presumption of innocence. A tie, in terms of evidence or lack of it, goes to the defendant.

 

[Msnoir]

Pop quiz: What if someone gave you a khat plant as a gift? What would you do? Don't look on the net before answering. This person is your friend, at you door, with a khat plant in his hand. What do you do?

Same question, only its a bottle of moonshine.

If a friend came with a khat plant for me, there would be two ways too answer.

What I should do; I should report the friend too the police, for having drugs on him. Drugs is against the law in Denmark. And the khat plant is in that category.
And what I would do: I would advise him, to take it away. I wouldn't let the person into my house. I hate drugs, and don't want anything to do with them,

 

[Msnoir]

The public laws, like don't kill, etc. You are able to look up, as many of you already said. But the unwritten laws, that have their origin , from tradition, morality, religion, and history, basically the culture of the country, those you have to experience on your own, or been tolled by an native, from that county.

Another thing is common sense.
I have a small story, about knowing nothing about the country you're visiting as a tourist.

Denmark/Scandinavia had an era with Vikings. Most people in the world knows this, but that era is gone, Today its reenactments, reenactors and groups who play the part. One of the places where there is a lot of history about the Vikings is in Ribe, the oldest town of Denmark. This just a bit information, tfor those who don't know this.ﾂｨ
Well the story is like this.
A couple of tourists is walking around in the old part of Ribe, and had some questions about its history, so the easiest way to gain that, was to ask a Dane.
They asked " Where do you keep you Vikings today?" Do they live in small reservations? And how do you keep them inline?. The person who was asked, I was tolled, had an hard time not laughing. But out of politeness, answered in honesty,
The vikings is extinct.
After that, they asked: All those people who is living here, were do they go in the winter? and by here means the street they were walking on. The answer to that question was. The people lives here, its their homes, and its not an act.
The tourists believed that all the people living in the old part of the town, was actors, and the place an reenactment.

I know this has nothing to do with laws, and breaking them, but its about being a bit prepared when you go places.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

If a friend came with a khat plant for me, there would be two ways too answer.

What I should do; I should report the friend too the police, for having drugs on him. Drugs is against the law in Denmark. And the khat plant is in that category.
And what I would do: I would advise him, to take it away. I wouldn't let the person into my house. I hate drugs, and don't want anything to do with them,

So you know for sure that Khat is illegal in Denmark?

I notice you just completely avoided the question about moonshine.

 

[Msnoir]

The moonshine is not as illegal as the drugs in Denmark. Or people look more away if it comes to moonshine, then drugs. I know quite a few who makes it.
And policies around alcohol in Denmark is not that hard. We are allowed to buy lesser spirits from the age of 16, and harder once at the age of 18.

 

[Msnoir]

But Denmark is a culture that loves to eat, and drink.
And this was a great example on the difference in culture.
Since I didn't pay any attention to the moonshine, because it wasn't important. Not for a Dane at least. Had it been someone else, were alcohol is a different matter, they would probably payed more attention to that

 

[Msnoir]

There are laws, and then there are laws.
I have 3 dogs, at home, and a sign on my door that shows I have dogs. The reason for that is, if a burglar came to my house, and was bitten by the dogs, he couldn't sue me. If the sign was missing, he could sue me.
That's a stupid law.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

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.

 

[Msnoir]

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.

But in that regard, Denmark is soft in many ways. We are not allowed to carry any guns, and only a few, can get a licence to have one.
You can get a license to have a hunting riffle, but the only time you can legally carry it is from home, to the hunting grounds.
If its found in your car, or other places that has nothing to do with hunting, you will get a fine, and at times a prison sentence.
But I do support it.
Except that we have open borders to Germany, which means, that there are no border controls, and smuggling has become easier, and a problem, so it has become harder to keep away the illegal weapons.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

Could you legally kill a burglar in your home with a knife or axe? Your law doesn't require you to lie down and submit to being a victim, does it?

 

[Msnoir]

Could you legally kill a burglar in your home with a knife or axe? Your law doesn't require you to lie down and submit to being a victim, does it?

we can defend our self but not kill. 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. But Denmark doesn't have many cases like that. I can't recall any. It's only in the last decade that killings with guns have become a minor problem. I know of two drive bys/killings on the street. The rest was with knifes, other minor weapons or fists.