Examples: 1. The man who worked hard to save $59,000. & government officials confiscated all of it for not filing a form requiring him to disclose how much he was leaving the country with. 2. A woman who didn't know that her 1st divorce papers had to be signed by the judge before she could legally be remarried & because of a 6 day overlap of 2nd marraige prior to judge signing 1st divorce, her 2nd husband legally ANNULLED their 10 yr. marraige. This 'legal loophole' left her penniless which enabled her abusive husband able to win primary custody. 3. Who helps protect your rights when you don't have the money. legal know-how and it's the 'law' itself that you've become a victim of?
2007-09-29 05:14:30 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Ignorance is no excuse... It is the obligation of every citizen to know the laws of the country they reside in... and luckily, in America, we have the right, the obligation to protest any laws we feel are unfair... and fight to change them!
1) His choice not to fill out the form.
2) There's more to this than is being stated on here... but, when she finally received her paperwork, why didn't they just remarry at that point? I have no sympathy for her... To jump from one failed marriage straight into another one, without time spent evaluating herself and what part she played in the failure of the first marriage, she set herself up for disaster... guess she will learn next time... and she should count herself LUCKY she didn't get slapped with bigamy charges!
That being said, there ARE far too many nonsensical laws in this country.
2007-09-29 05:33:34 · answer #1 · answered by billybuttonz 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't accept your examples at face value. For one thing, child custody is never granted on the basis of such a technicality. The only criteria for awarding custody is the best interests of the child.
There is a saying in the law that tough cases make bad law. Public policy simply cannot be made on the basis of unusual cases or extraordinary circumstances. Even though a small number of people will suffer as the result of any general policy under the law, you have to look at the bigger picture, examine the alternatives and decide policy based on what produces the best outcome in the greatest number of cases. The alternative to "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is a system in which the threshold issue in any legal case is legal proof that the defendant had actual knowledge of the law, which would make the vast majority of suits or prosecutions virtually unwinnable. And that would leave us to debate the injustice done to all the victims of that policy. There is no perfect system
2007-09-29 05:45:00 · answer #2 · answered by J P 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think the whole "ignorance" thing depends on what it is. If it's a crime that hurt someone, common sense would tell you it's wrong, whether you know it's an actual law or not. So in that case ignorance is not an excuse. If you're new to an area and accidently get onto an HOV lane with just you in the car, that was an honest mistake, you shouldn't be ticketed. It depends on the situation. There are places people w/out money can get legal help. It's called Legal Aid.
2007-09-29 05:21:06 · answer #3 · answered by BoredinVA 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You've got a point. However, the law "errs on the side of caution," as they say. Think for the moment what would happen if this "legal dictum" was not observed. Anyone who has done wrong will have an escape hatch -- "sorry, I didn't know that was illegal." Now, part of the exercise of our rights is to know the source and the limitations of those rights. It does not require of us to know the "law" as lawyers do, but we must be aware of their "salient" and "silent" points....most especially those that affect us. It's called responsible citizenship.
2007-09-29 05:58:55 · answer #4 · answered by compradore 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
yes it should be cuz if not you have an open ended system for fraud.everybody knows that if there is a way to fraud people will find it and use.however.i believe that cases such as you stated should have been judged more on a case by case basis and not to the letter of the law.as all laws,there is always the times when that is needed to prevent injustices from happenning,although i dont think the powers that be always choose to use that power.......
2007-09-29 05:25:42 · answer #5 · answered by spanky20900 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
An every day person cannot know every single law of the land so I would say NO it shouldn't be.
Man, there's people in my state that don't even know they can turn left on a red light on a one way street to a one way street. And thats been in effect for a long time now.
So ya, how does anyone expect us to know everything.
Lawyers don't even know "all" the laws for Gods sake!
2007-09-29 05:21:08 · answer #6 · answered by MLJ 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
it's a fine line between love and hate.
the circonstances are always different, there are only "simular cases", but it so hard to tell when or why it was done and/or on purpuse.
there is never a third person- like one of the lawyers- or a friend who can understand equally both sides.
that is the real problem, I guess
the letter of the law is NEVER how it is used.
2007-09-29 05:22:15 · answer #7 · answered by Jenny 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In both cases that you have cited, there are written forms that explain clearly what needs to be and doesn't need to be done. There is leagl aid available to those who cannot afford to pay for it. This is primarily done thrpuh legal aid societies. Unfortunately, this legal aid is not always at the quality level that is available to those who can and do pay.
2007-09-29 05:23:00 · answer #8 · answered by fangtaiyang 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I've never really thought that was quite fair, but I guess some of us have to learn things the hard way or we wouldn't learn at all. Seems like some sort of first offense warning with a chance to rectify the problem would be more fair though.
2007-09-29 05:19:15 · answer #9 · answered by 2bzy 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
yes and every woman getting a divorce should have a messenger from the court take her to lunch and go over trhe obligations she has to the court
nobody needs to know anything they should tell us what to do gosh the nerve of those people expecting a normal personm to be responsible and do research on there life
2007-09-29 05:20:38 · answer #10 · answered by jim1 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋