Is "ignorance of the law is no excuse" a reality?

Question

The term, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse", means that you are responsable to comply with the law, even if you do not know that the law exists!
My question is this:
Seeing as how there are hundreds of thousands (millions) of laws in this country (USA), and even Judges, arguably the most knowledgable as far as the law goes, require that precident, and statute be quoted to them, How can it legally be expected for the average person, who has NO contact with the law, theory about the statutes and court rulings, be held to a higher standard than the judges in thier court rooms?
How can the public be expected to know and understand the law when their are so many laws passed constantly and those laws are always written in legalese and are all but unintelligible and purposely written so that the average Joe (or Jane) cannot possibly figure out the meaning?

I was not referring exclusively to criminal statutes, but civil as well.
I will give an example.
I once rented an apartment and the landlord/manager/whatever, failed to make repairs that affected the livablity (is that a word?) of the apartment. I notified them verbally and then in writing, about the needed repairs. When they refused to make the repairs, I refused to pay the rent. According to the law, I had to notify them THREE times in writing. Then I had the right to not pay rent, contract privatly for the repairs and pay for the repairs, taking that amount off of future rents. THAT law is neither uniform from town to town, nor state to state.
Spitting in a park or sidewalk? Also not uniform around the country.
It IS unreasonable for these disparate statutes to exist and thereby ensnare the general public, who is not engaged in the study of law, to be assumed to have the knowledge of said laws.

what about public urination? what defines 'in public' (I seriously ask because 'in public' is not the same from state to state and town to town, either)?
Visibility?
Location?
Every single Male that I personally know, has taken a leak on the side of the road, at one time or another. Sometimes breaking a law and other times not, depending on where they were and the time of day they did it.
how is it reasonable for the average person to have knowledge of every law ever written, enforced, or repealed on everthig that has to do with our everyday life???

As for investigating what laws exist, I have been denied entrance to a law library, because I was not either a law student, or a lawyer. In another law library, I was denied assistance based on the same arguement and in a third case, I was denied the use of the Weslaw (I think that is the name)system due to the fact that I was not a licensed attorney.
But I am to be held accountable for my ignorance, even when the information was denied me, a person trying to avoid said ignorance???
That is why warnings should be given, to advise and educate, rather than loss of freedom, fines, or lawsuits being won/lost based on said ignorance.
in my case above, If I were advised by the apartment owner/management about my rights, especially when They were not living up to THEIR contractual obligation (and the contract specifically stated "your rights under the law, without telling what they were), should have been morally dismissed with the rights of BOTH parties spelled out!

Answer 1

I agree but "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is a reality
but it is a case by case basis I'm sure. For example If I were to rob a bank and told The judge I didn't know it was against the law obviously He would laugh at me before giving me 20 years. But if I broke a very vague or unknown law to the common person it may go alot better for me.

Answer 2

I am not a lawyer, but here's my view of the situation:

1) The average person DOES have contact with the law, assuming that they paid attention in grade school and high school civics classes, took a driver's education class, have turned on a radio or TV in their lifetime, or listened to others having a conversation about anything besides sports or American Idol.

2) Probably 95% of the laws don't pertain to your situation, so the chances of you violating them are pretty small.

3) I believe that citing precedent and statute are part of the process, not to inform the judge. This puts the exact law in question into the official record, so that it can be found easily if there is an appeal. The judge probably knows the law already, and all the arguments associated with it.

4) If all else fails, I believe that you are still expected to act as a reasonable person. That means that if you don't know that a certain activity is illegal, but a reasonable person would assume that it could be, you are expected to investigate before you act. For example, a reasonable person would know that it's probably illegal to set up a restaurant in their home and start charging people for your homegrilled BBQ chicken dinners, even if you do a good job with sanitation, food safety, etc.

Answer 3

"Ignorance of the law" is a fact of law. That goes from jay-walking all the way up to murder 1. It is not a jurist job to interpret the law, just enforce it. Theoretically, all laws are enforced equally. Otherwise who would determine which laws are made to be enforced 100% as opposed to laws that should only be enoforced (let's say) only 10%. All laws are supposed to be enforced equally. In the extreme one could argue "Well gee ... If I new murdering my spouse carried such a harsh penalty in this jurisdiction I would have killed her somewhere else, or maybe not even have done it, so you should let me go free!" obviously absurd, but where is the cut-off point? Judges do exercise lee-way but do not have to and it can be challenged. If you are driving in New York City it is your obligation to know the rules. You can not make a left turn on a red light! "Oh officer! I am so sorry... we are allowed to do that in Possom Snot, Kansas!" That won't wash either. The legal burden is upon the individual to know the laws of the jurisdiction and ignorance of the law is not excuse. Don't commit the crime, if you can't dot the time. It may seem burdensome but thems's the facts, Jack!

Answer 4

You are right, this legal maxim is easy to say, but difficult to apply with any sense of fairness. Yet it is upheld all the time.

Unfortunately, many people get tangled up in serious legal problems, whether criminal or civil, as a function of their ignorance.

There are a plethora of lawyers out there that can answer questions, give advice, and offer suggestions.

Also, many states have amid the gigantica of statutes, rules and codes, lots of exceptions for "innocent owners" and the like to balance out fairness with individuals lack of cognition about the law. Most judges expressly consider a person's state of mind within their judicial discretion in formulating sentences, or adjusting jury awards. A good number of state legislators are prudent and concerned enough to place exceptions, and loop holes for the protection of well meaning, inadvertant offenders and tortfeasors.

If you are concerned about a particular issue, call or write your state rep, and get the rule changed.

Hope this helps, good luck to you.

Answer 5

I may be wrong, but I think that statement refers to the ability to use common sense. For instance, the issue with the apt. the court would say that you had the opportunity to ASK before assuming you were doing the right thing. If you are unsure on how to handle certain things, you should call the court or a lawyer in your area to find out where you stand legally. I understand what you are saying, I am just letting you know how the courts see it. I guess they feel that it is up to you to inquire about legal issues before making a decision that you "think" is right. I hope this helps a little.

Answer 6

The formal writing of a law will be written in "lawyer tongue", however when interpreted, will be based on common sense. Please name one law that you would break if you didn't know existed (tough, isn't it?). Everyone has an understanding from right and wrong, and they are expected to conform to social norms. Law is just a guidline to formally punsih those who disobey. Note however that they disobey with full knowledge that what they are doing is wrong. If they seriously did not know what they were doing was wrong, then they likely didn't have intent behind their actions, and will not be punsihed.

Sorry about the babling.

- Ryan

Answer 7

When I used to practice law I too also wondered about this because it did not seem to be very realistic.

But as time went on - it did make more and more sense because so many people were claiming that they did not "know or realize" that they were doing anything wrong when in fact they were committing crimes.

So yes - Ignorance of the Law is absolutely No excuse!

If it were - Everybody would be using it and we would have criminals running loose all over the place and moreso than what we have now!

Answer 8

Yes it is true.

While most people don't get caught up in a mess, some do.

I believe I could charge anyone with a crime if I had access to all their information, and had the time and desire to do so. Even "reasonable" people trying to do the right thing.

Just look at format shifting, drm, etc and really read what it covers. I bet most Americans are guilty of a violation.

Answer 9

Pretty much true. But anyone living a reasonable existence isn't going to run afoul of laws that could put them away.

There are some crazy laws on the books but they are never enforced. I remember one I think in Philadelphia that it is illegal to give liquor to a gold fish.

If you don't do anything you know to be wrong it is very doubtful that you would ever get in trouble with the law.

Answer 10

That's why u always have the right to remain silent - of which, if the judge continues will either let you go, or u'll spend up to 48 hrs in jail.

btw, most,if not all 'statutes' do not pertain to most americans - however most americans panic - run to an attorney - which 'starts' the whole jurisdication process. Hope this helps.