Ignorance of the law

KC · 10-08-2012, 09:48 AM

I figure ignorance of the law should be a viable defense - more often.

In some precedent setting cases that have had to go to the supreme court for judgement, how could some 'common' people have ever determined on their own that their actions were illegal.

In other cases, hmmm.... Shouldn't warnings first have to be issued to first educate everyone on the law?

No mud flaps? It could cost you
http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...ad.php?t=24617

Ignorantia juris non excusat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoran...is_non_excusat

exiledincgy · 10-08-2012, 10:53 AM

Really, would it not become the great "cop out" of responsibility? It seems to me that it would be difficult to distinguish between one who is ignorant of a law and one who actually chose to ignore/break the law. What would the standard be for this defense? Would those who have higher education get less opportunity to use the defense than those who might appear to be less educated (and therefore maybe assumed to be less integlligent or informed). Would a lawyer or someone who works for a law firm have less access to this defense than a fast food worker or labourer? (Please note I am definitely not infering that a lawyer is any more or any less intellignet than a labourer or fast food worker)

KC · 10-08-2012, 12:00 PM

Yeah, not something I've thought out logically or deeply, and probably never could.

Still, if it takes a panel of the country's 'highest' judges to figure out some issues (charter rights, responsibilities, etc.) how could it be a "cop out" of the individual's responsibility? If lower court(s) judges, juries or whatever in retrospect failed in their judgement of an individual's actions and the Supreme Court reversed some not-guilty judgement based on an analysis of the charter or other law, could any single citizen be expected to understand such nuances?

Don't children get held to a lower standard of behaviour for similar reasons? (Lack of mental ability or whatever.)

On some decisions, shouldn't the first one be free?

exiledincgy · 10-08-2012, 12:58 PM

I appreciate your comment. I don't believe that children are held to a lower standard. Ages 12-17 = yuong offenders act. Overall what that means is that they do get judged however the sentencing is different and a criminal charge might not follow you for life. And now after thinking about this for awhile maybe it should be that you can plead ignorance, rather sentencing, fine etc should reflect first time offense and the likelyhood of reasonable ignorance of the law. First time offenders are usually snetenced like this anyways. The example you provided with the mudflaps is more regulatory and that is why there is only a fine, no record or demerits. So the sentence fits the "crime" in my opinion.

Paul Turnbull · 10-08-2012, 02:34 PM

I tend to think of it as personal responsibility. We are individually responsible for being aware of what the laws are. Allowing ignorance of the law to be a regular defence rather than an exceptional one would create an incentive to be ignorant of the law and/or to deny knowledge of the law. Some cases will be fought in court and small minority might even make to the Supreme Court but that's what they're for, to deal with the more difficult edge cases.

Also in many cases when new laws come about or old laws are changed the government works to publicize those and provide grace periods while the new law becomes normalized. Police also have leeway to give warnings rather than lay charges if they see fit.

The problems associated with allowing an ignorance defence are far greater than those with disallowing it.

exiledincgy · 10-08-2012, 02:54 PM

^I agree Paul. It is one thing to be "not guilty" due to ignorance of the law; and it's another to be guilty but have the sentence/fine reflect that ignorance. I think that if you breoke a law you should be found guilty. If a reasonable person might not be aware of the particular law then have the judge use their wisdom and determine an appropriate response/sentence. Also I seem to recall from my university law courses that for a person to be guilty of a criminal offense there must be intent, if you are unaware that what you were doing is a crime then it makes it hard to say that you had criminal intent. Are there any lawyers judges out there who can clarify this?

KC · 10-08-2012, 04:38 PM

Good point on the youth offenders treatment.

I may be right out of lunch on this whole thing.... but I figure most laws and associated contraventions of those laws are pretty well established. You do the crime, you do the time. Without knowing how the whole system works, I assume most of the cases reaching the Supreme Court are about people, companies etc. that have already been found guilty however they might get off the hook under some technicality or review of the evidence, mistake by a lower court, etc.

I'm thinking more of situations that are called landmark or groundbreaking cases. Decisions where, in retrospect, everyone was essentially ignorant of the law in light of the Supreme Court's ultimate decision. Essentially, the Supreme Court "interpreted" the law and/or saw the facts in a new light. As such, shouldn't there be some leniency or adjustment for such executive-doubt if it takes the highest level court to re-consider someone's 'guiltiness'.

Basically, the Supreme Court would say that, yes you were guilty as the lower courts had found, but the material facts in your case were so weird or unusual that it took us to finally figure it if the law applied or not - so there's no way you could have reasonably known you were breaking the law, and as such we're going to cut you some slack. After this though, everyone is now on notice...

Hmmm, I guess I have some learning to undertake. Or need to take time to think it through.

Paul Turnbull · 10-08-2012, 11:51 PM

I don't know the cases you're alluding to but typically the judge in cases does have leeway in sentencing based on the details of the case. Also I don't think the Supreme Court does sentencing only interpretation. If they uphold a law then the case gets kicked back down for sentencing I think.

What case(s) in particular are you thinking of?

Mla · 11-08-2012, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KC

I figure ignorance of the law should be a viable defense - more often.

In some precedent setting cases that have had to go to the supreme court for judgement, how could some 'common' people have ever determined on their own that their actions were illegal.

In other cases, hmmm.... Shouldn't warnings first have to be issued to first educate everyone on the law?

No mud flaps? It could cost you
http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...ad.php?t=24617

Ignorantia juris non excusat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoran...is_non_excusat

Disagree, the defence would be overused and nearly everybody would get off on their charges. It would just help in the breeding and continued non-education of stupid ignorant people. Take the guy with no mudflaps for instance, this person is obviously ignorant to the fact that his truck sprays mud, dirt, and gravel on every vehicle behind him which is a major safety hazard and inconvenience to everyone else on the road. Since he is too ignorant to see the negativity of his actions the only way he is going to learn his lesson is by getting a fine.

If you're an adult it is your responsibility to think about your actions. People need to start thinking about others instead of just themselves.

KC · 11-08-2012, 10:18 AM

In the US... There's always exceptions.
Lambert v. California
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambert_v._California

" The court held that in order to be punished, there must be a probability that the accused party had knowledge of the law before committing the crime."

Cheek v. United States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheek_v._United_States

"The Court held that an actual good-faith belief that one is not violating the tax law, based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law, negates willfulness, even if that belief is irrational or unreasonable. The Court also ruled that an actual belief that the tax law is invalid or unconstitutional is not a good faith belief based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law, and is not a defense."

AShetsen · 11-08-2012, 10:20 AM

Ignorance of the law cannot be an excuse. In fact, I believe it is an aggravating circumstance. It is everyone's responsibility to find out what the applicable laws are -- in every possible situation.

10-08-2012, 09:48 AM	#1
KC Addicted to C2E Join Date: Mar 2006	Ignorance of the law I figure ignorance of the law should be a viable defense - more often. In some precedent setting cases that have had to go to the supreme court for judgement, how could some 'common' people have ever determined on their own that their actions were illegal. In other cases, hmmm.... Shouldn't warnings first have to be issued to first educate everyone on the law? No mud flaps? It could cost you http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...ad.php?t=24617 Ignorantia juris non excusat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoran...is_non_excusat

10-08-2012, 10:53 AM	#2
exiledincgy Partially Addicted to C2E Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Langley, B.C.	Really, would it not become the great "cop out" of responsibility? It seems to me that it would be difficult to distinguish between one who is ignorant of a law and one who actually chose to ignore/break the law. What would the standard be for this defense? Would those who have higher education get less opportunity to use the defense than those who might appear to be less educated (and therefore maybe assumed to be less integlligent or informed). Would a lawyer or someone who works for a law firm have less access to this defense than a fast food worker or labourer? (Please note I am definitely not infering that a lawyer is any more or any less intellignet than a labourer or fast food worker) __________________ Glad to finally move out of cowtown where the best thing to do with visitors is to go to Banff.

10-08-2012, 12:58 PM	#4
exiledincgy Partially Addicted to C2E Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Langley, B.C.	I appreciate your comment. I don't believe that children are held to a lower standard. Ages 12-17 = yuong offenders act. Overall what that means is that they do get judged however the sentencing is different and a criminal charge might not follow you for life. And now after thinking about this for awhile maybe it should be that you can plead ignorance, rather sentencing, fine etc should reflect first time offense and the likelyhood of reasonable ignorance of the law. First time offenders are usually snetenced like this anyways. The example you provided with the mudflaps is more regulatory and that is why there is only a fine, no record or demerits. So the sentence fits the "crime" in my opinion. __________________ Glad to finally move out of cowtown where the best thing to do with visitors is to go to Banff.

10-08-2012, 02:34 PM	#5
Paul Turnbull Addicted to C2E Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Westmount, Edmonton	I tend to think of it as personal responsibility. We are individually responsible for being aware of what the laws are. Allowing ignorance of the law to be a regular defence rather than an exceptional one would create an incentive to be ignorant of the law and/or to deny knowledge of the law. Some cases will be fought in court and small minority might even make to the Supreme Court but that's what they're for, to deal with the more difficult edge cases. Also in many cases when new laws come about or old laws are changed the government works to publicize those and provide grace periods while the new law becomes normalized. Police also have leeway to give warnings rather than lay charges if they see fit. The problems associated with allowing an ignorance defence are far greater than those with disallowing it. __________________ twitter.com/chigaze

10-08-2012, 02:54 PM	#6
exiledincgy Partially Addicted to C2E Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Langley, B.C.	^I agree Paul. It is one thing to be "not guilty" due to ignorance of the law; and it's another to be guilty but have the sentence/fine reflect that ignorance. I think that if you breoke a law you should be found guilty. If a reasonable person might not be aware of the particular law then have the judge use their wisdom and determine an appropriate response/sentence. Also I seem to recall from my university law courses that for a person to be guilty of a criminal offense there must be intent, if you are unaware that what you were doing is a crime then it makes it hard to say that you had criminal intent. Are there any lawyers judges out there who can clarify this? __________________ Glad to finally move out of cowtown where the best thing to do with visitors is to go to Banff.

10-08-2012, 12:00 PM	#3
KC Addicted to C2E Join Date: Mar 2006	Yeah, not something I've thought out logically or deeply, and probably never could. Still, if it takes a panel of the country's 'highest' judges to figure out some issues (charter rights, responsibilities, etc.) how could it be a "cop out" of the individual's responsibility? If lower court(s) judges, juries or whatever in retrospect failed in their judgement of an individual's actions and the Supreme Court reversed some not-guilty judgement based on an analysis of the charter or other law, could any single citizen be expected to understand such nuances? Don't children get held to a lower standard of behaviour for similar reasons? (Lack of mental ability or whatever.) On some decisions, shouldn't the first one be free?

10-08-2012, 04:38 PM	#7
KC Addicted to C2E Join Date: Mar 2006	Good point on the youth offenders treatment. I may be right out of lunch on this whole thing.... but I figure most laws and associated contraventions of those laws are pretty well established. You do the crime, you do the time. Without knowing how the whole system works, I assume most of the cases reaching the Supreme Court are about people, companies etc. that have already been found guilty however they might get off the hook under some technicality or review of the evidence, mistake by a lower court, etc. I'm thinking more of situations that are called landmark or groundbreaking cases. Decisions where, in retrospect, everyone was essentially ignorant of the law in light of the Supreme Court's ultimate decision. Essentially, the Supreme Court "interpreted" the law and/or saw the facts in a new light. As such, shouldn't there be some leniency or adjustment for such executive-doubt if it takes the highest level court to re-consider someone's 'guiltiness'. Basically, the Supreme Court would say that, yes you were guilty as the lower courts had found, but the material facts in your case were so weird or unusual that it took us to finally figure it if the law applied or not - so there's no way you could have reasonably known you were breaking the law, and as such we're going to cut you some slack. After this though, everyone is now on notice... Hmmm, I guess I have some learning to undertake. Or need to take time to think it through.

10-08-2012, 11:51 PM	#8
Paul Turnbull Addicted to C2E Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Westmount, Edmonton	I don't know the cases you're alluding to but typically the judge in cases does have leeway in sentencing based on the details of the case. Also I don't think the Supreme Court does sentencing only interpretation. If they uphold a law then the case gets kicked back down for sentencing I think. What case(s) in particular are you thinking of? __________________ twitter.com/chigaze

11-08-2012, 10:18 AM	#10
KC Addicted to C2E Join Date: Mar 2006	In the US... There's always exceptions. Lambert v. California http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambert_v._California " The court held that in order to be punished, there must be a probability that the accused party had knowledge of the law before committing the crime." Cheek v. United States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheek_v._United_States "The Court held that an actual good-faith belief that one is not violating the tax law, based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law, negates willfulness, even if that belief is irrational or unreasonable. The Court also ruled that an actual belief that the tax law is invalid or unconstitutional is not a good faith belief based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law, and is not a defense."

11-08-2012, 10:20 AM	#11
AShetsen Addicted to C2E Join Date: May 2012	Ignorance of the law cannot be an excuse. In fact, I believe it is an aggravating circumstance. It is everyone's responsibility to find out what the applicable laws are -- in every possible situation.