is commiting a crime without knowing your commiting a crime a crime?

Answer 1

yep.

Answer 2

Well, sometimes and sometimes not.
Merely not knowing that what you're doing is a crime is _almost_ never an excuse. There are some crimes, however, that require the prosecution to prove that people are "knowingly" _violating the law_. These are rare. And in addition, a mistake of fact can be an excuse.
Further, _most_ crimes require "mens rea," in other words a "guilty mind." That is, you have to intend to cause the harm you caused (or were negligent or reckless with your actions). That doesn't mean you have to knowingly break the law, but rather you have to, for lack of a better term, know what you're doing.
Which gets me to my final exception, insanity. In most places if you are unable to tell right from wrong, or are unable to understand the consequences of your actions, you may be judged mentally incompetent. (For those of you who think otherwise, a verdict of insanity almost always ends up requiring MUCH more involuntary incarceration than if the person pleaded guilty.)

Answer 3

"Ignorance of the Law is no excuse". That's been the SOP for a long time.

But, courts - or the Police, in the early stages of a 'crime' - do have a certain amount of common sense and will allow for ignorance where the matter is not too important.

I've just answered another ? re how long you should leave a 2 year old "in a cage". The answer, if the person didn't mean a play-pen, is never. If that parent had 'caged' her child, she'd need to be judged a bit more severely than someone found walking their dog in a park where dogs are forbidden - but there aren't any signs up and s/he just moved to the area!

Answer 4

General position with UK law:
you can still be charged with a crime even if you did not know it was a crime. But when it comes to court, the position with most crimes is that to be found guilty you have to have show an intent to commit that crime otherwise you have to be found not guilty.

Exceptions: offences known as crimes of strict liability can be committed if you did something even without knowing it was illegal. criminal strict liability offences include;
* contempt of court
* vicarious liability
and according to wikipedia It is used either in regulatory offences enforcing social behaviour where minimal stigma attaches to a person upon conviction, or where society is concerned with the prevention of harm, and wishes to maximise the deterrent value of the offence, such as public nuisance, tort and product liability and traffic offences..

In conclusion: For criminal acts, an intent is almost always required, except for the exceptional crimes/ torts highlighted above, for which you can be responsible even if you did not intend to commit them. For all other criminal offences you must show an intent to have down some knowing wrong.

Answer 5

Ignorance of the law is no excuse...zzzz
This is so biased in favor of the elderly. Almost all knowledge I have of laws in the U.S. has been from personally committing an error or of hearing about the experiences of friends or family.
I dream of a simpler day when laws are not invented by people with the same amount of experience and knowledge as those they want to rule, control, or herd. A majority compromise (what you get from a legislative body) will never be as good of a solution as that of the most intelligent and experienced individual in the group; forget about all the group work some educational committee deemed imperative to shove down the throats of you and your classmates. But where do we find this intelligent and experienced being. No, not a dictator or Ken Jennings. Oh yeah, God. This post may seem naive to many folks out there, but there are so many laws out there that may have seemed necessary to the simpletons who decided to enact them, but they are not. The problems of this country cannot be fixed by creating more and more laws (what legislators have been doing nonstop since this country's inception), but by something I unfortunately cannot name. A reinvigoration of patriotism, a spiritual revival, I don't know. But as long as I am not ignorant of the laws given to us by God (which a small child can learn and understand in no time), then I will be quite content in my ignorance of the laws of my peers. The architects of our Constitution were incredible in their foresight and thoroughness, but they need to be taken off their pedestal in this country and we should look to the sources of their inspiration. I am going to shut up now because it is time for dinner.

Answer 6

Yes, there is an old saying which covers this "Ignorance is no excuse". Think about it - if you could avoid the consequences of a crime simply by saying you didn't realize it was against the law, how would we prosecute anyone?

Answer 7

you've really 4 rights to guard you from police study: what you tell a clergyman or different clergy, what you tell an more desirable 0.5, what you tell your legal professional, and what a doctor is conscious about you. all of us else is needed by regulation and may want to be prosecuted for not answering questions about you. in short, no. Your rights were not violated. Your boss isn't your preacher, your better 0.5, your legal professional, or your physician. He can tell the police officials each little thing he's conscious about what you suggested, did, ate, or tried to do. EDIT: each of the above solutions that communicate about organization coverage are incorrect. No organization coverage can dictate what information police can assemble with or with no warrant. If a record is legal for the police to verify, like time playing cards, abode addresses, etc with no warrant, then your boss can bypass to penitentiary for not providing them. such issues as time playing cards, abode addresses, etc do not require warrants so long because the police are carrying out an energetic study. Warrants are really required for such issues as workers comments, artwork histories (not cutting-edge pay sessions), cost comments, etc, yet on condition that the agency products to providing them. If the police officials ask and the agency says, 'particular', then no warrant is needed. those records belong for your agency, not you.

Answer 8

Ignorance of the law is not a valid defense. You are expected to know what is right and wrong and if it is an area you are not familiar with, it is your obligation to research the law. All laws, in every state and federal also are public knowledge and can be accessed online, at a law library and elsewhere.

Answer 9

It depends.
The law is rarely as black and white as the previous answers paint it.
Ignorance of the law is not a defense. If you kill someone then and can prove that you didn't know murder was against the law, you're still going to jail.
HOWEVER, mens rea (criminal mind) is a pre-requisite for criminal prosecution. If I shoplift because I didn't know it was illegal, I'll be prosecuted. But if I shoplift because I accidentally left a shirt in my bag (and I can prove it was accidental), then I'm not guilty of shoplifting (because I lack the requisite intent).

Answer 10

If I steal something it is wrong whether I know it or not. This is because society has assembled several laws and rules for safety and better communal living. If I break these laws/rules, I have committed a violation of them regardless if I know it or not.

Answer 11

Yes, but most crimes require a certain amount of intent.