The rule “ignorance of the law is not an excuse” really means that people cannot defend their actions by pretending that they did not know the law. Questions for discussion 1. What is the difference between a law and a rule? What if you claim you don`t know a rule? What rules do you think should have the force of law? 2. Think of a time when you broke a rule you weren`t aware of. How did you feel? How was the situation resolved? 3. The article talks about some exceptions where people pretended to be ignorant and were not convicted of the crime. Think of other examples where a person might commit a crime without knowing it and should not be punished. Explain your reasoning. While ignorance of the law, like other errors of law, is not a defence, an error of fact may very well be, depending on the circumstances, that is, a false but sincere belief in a factual fact that, had it been the case, would have rendered the conduct legally innocent. The contradictions in legal statements regarding vagueness and intent that arise from the struggle to prevent “unjust” convictions, without abandoning the concept that ignorance of the law cannot excuse, do more than bring discord into the theoretical structure of criminal law. Contradictions also diminish the effectiveness of these doctrines in ensuring equity, which is postulated as their objective. The U.S. Supreme Court has made some exceptions to the “ignorance is no excuse” defense.
In Lambert v. 1957 In California, the court ruled that the defendant`s (Lambert) failure to register as a criminal after moving to Los Angeles was a “completely passive act.” Lambert, who had previously been convicted of forgery, was unaware of an order requiring her to register as a criminal if she was in the city of Los Angeles for more than five days. Because she was not allowed to use ignorance of the law as a defence, she was fined $250 and sentenced to three years of probation. Lambert could have faced up to six months in jail for every day in the city after exceeding the five-day limit. The court quashed the conviction. Justice William Douglas wrote in the court`s majority opinion: “If a person was not aware of the requirement to register, and if there was no evidence of the likelihood of such knowledge, he cannot be convicted in accordance with due process.” Some modern criminal statutes contain language such as the provision that the act must be “knowingly and knowingly” or “with unlawful intent” or similar wording. However, this does not refer to ignorance of the laws, but to criminal intentions. From this venerable ancestry was born the maxim Ignorantia Juris currently in force in the United States. A broad and early acceptance of the maxim can be found in many cases. As with the Roman and British versions, the American version of the principle was often articulated in noble terms: every person – with reasonable understanding is supposed to know the law and act according to the rights it confers or upholds – and “there is culpable negligence in him to commit an act. and then to erect his ignorance of the law as a defence. LAW, UNWWRITTEN or lex non scripta.
All laws that do not meet the definition of statutory law; It consists mainly of natural law, international law, common law and custom. In both cases, the court explains what the law is, but also states that the defendant is not criminally responsible for the violation of the law. The court therefore remains theoretically the publisher; The excuse of an error of law will not affect the legislative function of the courts in practice, unless it interferes with obedience to the declared law. If the excuse of ignorance of a law did not reduce the deterrent effect of the law, then the excuse of a misconception about the meaning of a law should not have a greater negative effect. Over the years, the U.S. Supreme Court has addressed the issue of ignorance of the law. Barlow v. United States in 1833 concerned the seizure of 85 barrels of sugar that Joseph Barlow was attempting to export under the false name of refined sugar.
Barlow claimed that the sugar was not registered under a false name and that he did not intend to defraud revenue. The court did not believe that Barlow was unaware that the sugar he was trying to export was unrefined, saying the case raised a broader question “whether an error of law will excuse forfeiture in cases of this description. We believe that will not be the case. The totality of common law criminal and civil jurisprudence leads to a different conclusion. It is a general maxim familiar to all minds that ignorance of the law excuses no one, civil or criminal, and it results from the extreme difficulty of determining the good faith interpretation of the party, and from the extreme danger of permitting such excuses for unlawful acts. to the detriment of the public. In civil matters, ignorance of the law is generally irrelevant. An agreement cannot be rejected because the promising party did not know that it was entered into in circumstances that would create a binding contract. On the other hand, ignorance of the facts may exonerate some of its liability or form the basis of recovery, for example if an insurance company pays the insured amount ignoring the fact that the policy has expired. Ignorance of foreign law is, where appropriate, equated with ignorance of the facts.
Presumed knowledge of the law is the jurisprudential principle that one is bound by a law, even if one does not know it. It has also been defined as a “prohibition of ignorance of the law”. LAW, MUNICIPAL. Municipal law is defined by Justice Blackstone as “a rule of civil conduct prescribed by the supreme power in a state which commands what is right and forbids what is evil.” This definition has been criticised and perhaps rightly regarded as imperfect. The last part was considered abundant for the former; see note by Mr. Christian; and the first too general and vague and too limited in its meaning to give a fair idea of the subject. See law, civil law. Mr.
Chitty defines municipal law as “a rule of civil conduct prescribed by the supreme power in a state, commanding what should and should not be done.” 1 Bl. Com. 44, note 6, adapted from Chitty. 2. City law was a law enacted by the Romans to govern a particular city or province; This term derives from the Latin municipium, which by virtue of them designated a city subject to its own laws and had its own magistrates. The inability of U.S. lawyers and commentators to agree on a single justification for the maxim has not ruled out its application in the U.S., but it may help explain the increasing number of cases that have deviated from the maxim over time. Despite the plethora of reasoning used to support the application of the maxim in the United States, the courts have also departed from the maxim, just as their ancestors did when evidence of good faith ignorance or error made a criminal conviction unfathomable (to them), or the law itself required forgiveness of a defendant`s error of law. While “ignorance of the law” is no excuse, Basciano says that in some cases it can be a mitigating circumstance when considering a conviction in a criminal case or reduced damages in a civil proceeding.
In England, the maxim has taken on a less lenient occupation. Although it appears that the maxim derives from civil actions under Roman law, English courts have also allowed it to control the outcome of crimes. Moreover, English common law courts have distinguished between allegations of ignorance or errors of law and errors of fact.
