"Ignorance of the Law" Question

[MistWing]

What is the name of your state? Nevada

I hope this is the right place to ask this. I can't figure out where else it should go.

I have always been curious about the phrase "Ignorance of the law is no excuse". Given that new laws are being created all the time and even professional lawyers can't know all of them, how can a citizen, untrained in the legal practise, be reasonably be expected to know them all (or, at least, those that would pertain to him/her)?

I mean, some laws are pretty obscure and non-obvious (Go out to the Dumb Law site and you'll see). And yet, we are expected to know these laws and, if we violate them, we can be charged.

Or is there a qualification to the phrase I'm unaware of?

Thanks
MistWing SilverTail

 

[Boxcarbill]

What is the name of your state? Nevada

I hope this is the right place to ask this. I can't figure out where else it should go.

I have always been curious about the phrase "Ignorance of the law is no excuse". Given that new laws are being created all the time and even professional lawyers can't know all of them, how can a citizen, untrained in the legal practise, be reasonably be expected to know them all (or, at least, those that would pertain to him/her)?

I mean, some laws are pretty obscure and non-obvious (Go out to the Dumb Law site and you'll see). And yet, we are expected to know these laws and, if we violate them, we can be charged.

Or is there a qualification to the phrase I'm unaware of?

Thanks
MistWing SilverTail

No one is expected to know all the laws. But ignorance of the law is not a defense to a criminal offense. That is the application of the phrase.

 

[MistWing]

Which means that I am still accountable for breaking laws I never knew, nor realistically was expected to know, existed.

So, if a law was passed that said "It's illegal to cross the street on Tuesday between the hours of 14:00 and 15:00", I could be held acountable for breaking it even though it's a ridiculous law and I had no reason to expect that law was ever made.

It seems to me that the "ignorance of the law" needs a bit of updating

 

[Boxcarbill]

Which means that I am still accountable for breaking laws I never knew, nor realistically was expected to know, existed.

So, if a law was passed that said "It's illegal to cross the street on Tuesday between the hours of 14:00 and 15:00", I could be held acountable for breaking it even though it's a ridiculous law and I had no reason to expect that law was ever made.

It seems to me that the "ignorance of the law" needs a bit of updating

No, we should acquit the accused of sexual intercourse with a thirteen year old because he didn't know it was against the law to have intercourse with a person that thirteen or that he didn't know she was thirteen. It should be a defense that one didn't know it was illegal to write a check on an account which belongs to another--after all if the money is in the account, the check is good. It should be a defense that the defendant didn't know that it was illegal to assault the wife and the kids, if when they need it. It should be a defense to any criminal charge that "Hey, I didn't know that was against the law." In fact, if we allowed the defense of "I didn't know," we could get rid of all other defenses.

 

[MistWing]

I said "UPDATE" not "ELIMINATE".

I know that, if left unchecked, elimination of the "ignorance" clause would cause no end of problems. However, as it sits right now, the legal system virtually requires every sitizen to know every law (and possibly, their interpretations) to avoid accidentally breaking the law. In fact, to avoid accidentally breaking the law, the average citizen would have to know the law better than the lawyers (who have reference material to look up the specifics of the law as the situation warrents)

MistWing SilverTail

 

[Boxcarbill]

I said "UPDATE" not "ELIMINATE".

I know that, if left unchecked, elimination of the "ignorance" clause would cause no end of problems. However, as it sits right now, the legal system virtually requires every sitizen to know every law (and possibly, their interpretations) to avoid accidentally breaking the law. In fact, to avoid accidentally breaking the law, the average citizen would have to know the law better than the lawyers (who have reference material to look up the specifics of the law as the situation warrents)

MistWing SilverTail

One "updates" a pre-existing law. Since ignorance of the law is not a law, it cannot be revised or repealed but would have to be enacted as a defense. Let me add to this response. Criminal law, which is what we are talking about, requires both mens rea (mental intent) and actus rea (a voluntary act). So with regard to ignorance of the law, one would still have to have the requisite mental intent for commission of the crime--ie. knowingly, recklessly, negligently. Add to that the burden of proof in a criminal case is beyond reasonable doubt not a preponderance of the evidence. Furthermore, one can always challenge a law that is "overly broad," or "vague" on constitutional grounds.

 

[MistWing]

THAT, I didn't know. I always thought that it was actually a law. Thanks for the info.

Related question: Since it isn't actually a law, could a judge allow 'ignorance' if, in his/her opinion, it was actually an acceptable defence in a case?

MistWing SilverTail

 

[Boxcarbill]

THAT, I didn't know. I always thought that it was actually a law. Thanks for the info.

Related question: Since it isn't actually a law, could a judge allow 'ignorance' if, in his/her opinion, it was actually an acceptable defence in a case?

MistWing SilverTail

Defenses are set out by statute so, no, a Judge cannot make up the law as he goes along. I edited my above response to point out that criminal offenses require a mental intent. Mental intent is an element of the offense and each and every element of the offense , including the requisite mental intent, must be proven in order to obtain a conviction which will stand up appeal.

 

[JETX]

Did you know:

1) That in Tajikstanm, ignorance of the law is actually in their constitution.
"42.2 Ignorance of the law is not an excuse."
http://www.privatization.tajikistan.com/laws/lawcon1.htm

2) That this principle is part of Canadian Criminal Code:
"19. Ignorance of the law by a person who commits an offence is not an excuse for committing that offence."
http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec19.html

3) It is also a part of Candian common law.
"12 Ignorance of the law is not an excuse (C.C. sec. 19). However, in some cases there may be exceptions"
http://www.pearsoned.ca/winterdyk/appendixa.html

 

[Boxcarbill]

Did you know:

1) That in Tajikstanm, ignorance of the law is actually in their constitution.
"42.2 Ignorance of the law is not an excuse."
http://www.privatization.tajikistan.com/laws/lawcon1.htm

2) That this principle is part of Canadian Criminal Code:
"19. Ignorance of the law by a person who commits an offence is not an excuse for committing that offence."
http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec19.html

3) It is also a part of Candian common law.
"12 Ignorance of the law is not an excuse (C.C. sec. 19). However, in some cases there may be exceptions"
http://www.pearsoned.ca/winterdyk/appendixa.html

No, I didn't but it is such old legal principle that I'm not surprised that is in some codes. It is probably mentioned in some state codes here in the states.