Thread: Ignorance of the law...

Originally Posted by Nanaz

While being a little silly with my example, it brought up some valid points which you disarmed by modifying it. In my example I gave an exploitation of a system where you can't be punished for laws that you aren't aware of, and a situation that has an irreversable consequence. If the situation I gave before is too foggy, then how about a driver with alchohol in his system, that is in an area with a 0 tolerance policy runs over a kid chasing a ball into the street?

I get your point now, drawing the line between actual ignorance and feigned ignorance becomes less relevant when the consequences of violating the laws are more severe than a "reversible" scenario.

@ atomicdew
thanks for the link and explanation those were extremely helpful.

The law is a problem that I see with a lot of modern society. To me, it kind of makes Faulty Towers customer service seem more useful than our legal systems.

A lot of the time, when a law is made (not that laws are often made this simplistic, but its an example), it's often undefined. It's like a law that says "Thou Shalt Not Kill". So that clearly covers that you're not allowed to take a gun and murder another person for the sake of fun, but what if you have a spider in your house and you take a shoe and kill it. You're guilty since the law didn't specify that you're not allowed to kill humans... Lets say that it did specify that you're not allowed to kill people, what if someone is trying to kill you and in defense of yourself as a last resort you kill them. You're guilty of a crime.. but are you really? What about in defense of others? What about in times of war?

The issue is that each crime has to go through the courts and be ruled upon in nauseating verbatim in many different forms to the point where even the lawyers have no real idea if something is illegal or not... or at a minimum have differing opinions.

So how is any lay person supposed to learn these laws?

One would think that it would be as simple as to call the police or the courts to find out what is illegal or not.

Guess what? They're not allowed to answer those questions.

But what about your right for the courts to provide you a lawyer?? Well you've got to commit a crime first....

What about laws that have been passed that have no case law? Where the lawyers don't know the answers and they need specialized lawyers to argue the interpretation of the law.

It's a screwed up world we live in. Kind of makes you wish you live in a communist country... At least then you know you're not free instead of pretending you're not a slave to an upside down system that pretends to be of the people for the people.

You have NO choice but to remain ignorant of the law.... and for that you have no excuse... yeah, makes total sense.

/end rant

As a general principle ignorance of the law cannot be a defense, otherwise anyone could claim ignorance as a defense and you'd get into a daft situation of having to prove a persons knowledge. Most major laws are well known by people. As for minor bylaws, well much of this covers business, so its their responsibility to know. Many other minor laws are activities that you would guess are questionable anyway so should really check into it. Alot of the time if you infringe a minor law you'll only get a slap on the wrist anyway.

Another point is that minor laws that people break here and there out of ignorance are often enforced with a warning and education for a first offense. For example, if a city bans open-container alcohol in a certain place, often the offender will be told that is against the rules/law, and told to discard it or leave. If they continue, then penalties occur. Now, some jerks might ticket them on the spot, but from my experience it usually begins with a warning and informing that the action is illegal.

Another example is file-sharing. Do most ISP's cut you off when they send the first letter? Or is the letter in itself an informative one, stating the consequences of continuing the action, and the legal issues involved?

A fraction of the law is meant to give moral code. Especially the no-concequence laws. For example, in my country it was illegal for minors to smoke or buy cigarettes for minors but there was no punishment. The police couldn't even confiscate the cigarettes... Thus, even laws which are commonly ignored has a purpose.

In general, the law should be quite intuitive for citizens, otherwise it's a bad law (except the laws for special cases, e.g. business or taxes which you should learn if you need them). Killing another person is wrong but there's always special cases which are often taken into account in the law.