In most legal systems ignorance is not a defence (ie. you can't plead innocent to a crime just because you didn't know it was illegal). But my question is, is this fair? Some aspects of law are so technical, normal people can't be expected to know about every little detail. And I'm not just talking about complicated business or financial law here, I'm thinking of laws that affect people's lives such as laws regarding alcohol, drugs and sex.
2006-08-09 05:33:53 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Actually, your statement is incomplete.
Ignorance (mistake of fact) is a defense where the crime has a required element of knowing that what you were doing was illegal. Such as when a crime requires a "willfully violation" of some statute.
Also, mistake of law (ignorance as to the law) is a defense where the laws are particularly complex. There are a number of situations where a bona fide (good faith) misunderstanding about what you were legally required to do is a full defense against the violation. Some of the federal tax crimes allow this defense, because the laws in that area are so complex.
For other areas of the law, which are not complex, the good faith defense doesn't generally apply, because it's not hard to figure out what is and is not illegal. For examples: laws that say you cannot have sex with a child, or carry a gun if you are a felon, or drink if you are under 21, or use prescription drugs without a prescription. Which word don't you understand? These laws are not complex. And there's no real confusion over what drugs are legal or illegal. Even if there wasn't a published list, I don't think anyone can seriously argue that they though cocaine was legal.
Which brings us back to the idea that the laws are publicly available for review, so there is no excuse for refusing to spend the effort either reading the laws for yourself, or going to a professional to determine whether something is legal or not. The reason ignorance of the law is not an excuse, is to prevent people from just not bothering to read the laws as a way to avoid them. It's the old "ostrich sticking its head in the sand" defense (also called willful blindness) and it's not allowed for just that reason.
People aren't expected to know every little detail. But most of the laws people are expected to follow are not that complex, and not that difficult to understand. And they are publicly available for review, even if we didn't have dozens of cop TV shows that tell people what is legal and what is not.
And for the laws that are complex, the good faith misunderstanding is available for just that reason.
2006-08-09 05:43:37 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If ignorance were accepted as a defense, anyone could simply claim ignorance, and the prosecution couldn't prove them wrong. How can they prove what's in someone's head?
I see what you mean, though.
I guess the fairness depends on whether you SHOULD have known the act was wrong, or it's something quirky that no one could be expected to know. Some sort of "reasonable person" standard.
2006-08-09 05:43:32 · answer #2 · answered by tehabwa 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it would be subject to far too much abuse, and a common argument which would probably destroy that defense every time would be :
So why didnt you research the norms, values etc of places and acts you decided to go to and act out?
And considering your meaning drugs, alcohol and sex, this applies even more so - only a truely stupid person would go in to a place with only what he decided must be true and then use ignorance as a defense.
2006-08-09 05:42:33 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
enable's do a assessment, the IRA terrorized for their reason, however the united kingdom did no longer deliver in F-18's to resign it, that could desire to have been considered as extreme tension. Hamas fires a rocket or 2, and a handful of Israeli's die... their "protection" is killing upwards of four hundred human beings by utilising airstrike. that's an occasion of extreme tension. Neither facet is doing the main dazzling factor, despite the fact that it extremely is ludicrous for all and sundry (sorry whilst you're examining this Paperback) to attempt to justify Israel's protection as an appropriate reaction. the full concern is FUBAR and the international needs to denounce the two factors as being violent and dangerous as a replace of siding with Israel for the political boons it returns.
2016-12-11 10:31:15 · answer #4 · answered by younker 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's sure that there are some basics, but I think you're right that we can't know everything. Still, sayig "i didn't know it was illegal" couldn't be an excuse because everybody would use that to be declared innocent.
2006-08-09 05:40:08 · answer #5 · answered by simfr21 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Fair? What planet are you from? If you think life isn't or should be fair, come to the ballgame. Fairness is not reality!!!!
2006-08-09 06:46:51 · answer #6 · answered by rico3151 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No but neither is life.
2006-08-09 05:38:29 · answer #7 · answered by Bree 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋