Just keen to get a bit of a debate going

[Cookie182]

You can hide this advertisement by registering.

Hey,

havent even started my law studies yet, but i just keep reading up on various aspects and consistantly come across the cliche "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." Not sure if this has been discussed before, but thought it might provide an entertaining debate and was interested in reading how current law students interpret it.

Obviously, u can not murder sum one and claim u were ignorant of the law. Otherwise, any defendant would make this claim. But what about lesser laws, which are not based on strong moral guidelines, particulaly those to do with emerging technologies, money...is everyone expected to have a full legal knwoledge in life before taking (or not taking) action?

The most obvious answer i believe i will get is- law is based on common social goals, morals etc But can we place one set of morals and values on every member of society. What if a person from another planet came to earth and killed sum1, for a minor reason (he hated the tone of their voice) and was then arrested and claimed that he was sorry, but had no idea of the law. Where he was from, killing was a common daily practice and wen twith out punishment.

anyway, just getting u's all thinking...

[subdued123]

you have a sharp mind there.

To cut a long story short - you should do jurisprudence when you hit uni - by asking questions like you have, you've demonstrated that you'll like it.

If you're not clear - jurisprudence is the study of WHY we have the laws we do and the philosophical assumptions that underpin them. Questions like the one you just threw are part and parcel of the subject.

I'm not qualified enough to answer your question, though - i was never a fan of the subject when i studied it. However - to be entirely facetious, if the alien race were to then colonise earth, then they could replace our laws with theirs and mr alien dude would be fine. However, an intergalactic war is hardly the answer you want.

There is no clear cut answer, however, if that's what you're looking for.

[Enteebee]

A lot of injustice in law is done for convenience in recognising the limitations of any system (mainly time).

[fnkychk]

lol @ emergining.

I think it is appropriate to impose the law onto people even if they haven't gone and looked up the act before they did it to check if it was legal. It's better than the alternative of letting people getting away with things. Surely though, punishments vary according to how clearly 'wrong' the crime is, eg violent crime is violent crime regardless of whether you know the specific offence you're committing, but in other, non-violent crimes your ignorance may vary whether you're convicted and the severity of the sentence.

Generally though, I think people know when they're doing something that is dodgy and likely to be illegal. How many serious crimes can you think of that would surprise someone as being illegal? Every crime is either universally moral and/or logical/reasonable.

[Xytech]

Originally Posted by Cookie182

Hey,

havent even started my law studies yet, but i just keep reading up on various aspects and consistantly come across the cliche "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." Not sure if this has been discussed before, but thought it might provide an entertaining debate and was interested in reading how current law students interpret it.

Obviously, u can not murder sum one and claim u were ignorant of the law. Otherwise, any defendant would make this claim. But what about lesser laws, which are not based on strong moral guidelines, particulaly those to do with emerging technologies, money...is everyone expected to have a full legal knwoledge in life before taking (or not taking) action?

The most obvious answer i believe i will get is- law is based on common social goals, morals etc But can we place one set of morals and values on every member of society. What if a person from another planet came to earth and killed sum1, for a minor reason (he hated the tone of their voice) and was then arrested and claimed that he was sorry, but had no idea of the law. Where he was from, killing was a common daily practice and wen twith out punishment.

anyway, just getting u's all thinking...

You could apply that analogy to foreigners moving to Australia where laws may be different, eg polygamy, its ok to beat children/wife, female circumcision, etc. In those instances, the law applies even if they don't know, and I think rightly so.

[M@C D@DDY]

What about if i got a parking ticket for an offence which I wasn't aware of? (it was some obscure rule to do with parking parallel to double unbroken lines) Does that breach of the law justify a fine? I was indeed ignorant of the law, but my actions were harmless to society in general.

[shona1990]

Originally Posted by M@C D@DDY

What about if i got a parking ticket for an offence which I wasn't aware of? (it was some obscure rule to do with parking parallel to double unbroken lines) Does that breach of the law justify a fine? I was indeed ignorant of the law, but my actions were harmless to society in general.

Wouldn't that just be a case of strict liability? If you're driving you should be aware of the laws. You can't exactly just complain and say "I didn't know I wasn't allowed to do that". Whether or not it harmed anyone, it's a law for a reason.

[sergeoz]

hmm...intresting

there is no way ignorance can be claimed as a defence by a sane, mentally fit, and ofcourse a memeber of our society, therefore, by following my asumption, it dosent matter what crime was commited or by who, in our society as in the human race, every1 follows our laws, like it or hate it, we are kings and this is our land, hence the perfect buracratic response.... seek legal advice prior to anything ...

the lawyer is our messiah

[OliverHolmes]

Of course, the above position happily suggests that there is some base moral component to laws (natural law), or legal legitimation resulting from a due process of parliamentary creation (positivism), that would justify the application of existing laws to individuals who may well be ignorant of them. That's a nice comfortable position that will provide an answer to the thread query. Either position would provide necessary legitimation for the stringent application of the law to the unknowing.

Indeed, one could argue (via HLA Hart) that the abstraction of the legal system (and the enforcement of laws) from everyday societal interrelations (i.e. a morality) to an objectified system of institutions that do not require complete acceptance by the citizenry (i.e. a legal system) presupposes a base level of ignorance of most laws. This was no problem for Hart, and this argument could be marshalled in defence of the thread question.

As noted above, taking legal philosophy, jurisprudence or forensic sociology units in your degree will explore these kinds of questions.

[OliverHolmes]

Originally Posted by shona1990

Wouldn't that just be a case of strict liability? If you're driving you should be aware of the laws. You can't exactly just complain and say "I didn't know I wasn't allowed to do that". Whether or not it harmed anyone, it's a law for a reason.

A law for a 'reason'...

But one could immediately counter that the process whereby specific laws achieve legal legitimation is inherently flawed or problematic (indeed, mere proclamation hardly does the community justice in terms of creating basic awareness).

And strict liability offences are very contentious, and were the subject of much debate upon introduction (and still are). Many a magistrate has questioned the efficicacy of stripping the judiciary of discretion irrespective of specific factual information bearing upon the offence...

[Enteebee]

As I was alluding to earlier, I think where strict liability approaches become more favourable is where it becomes a more difficult excercise to discern culpability, there is a public desire for justice and little available time/money to be wasted on courts. You see proponents for such ideas pop up in cases all the way from rape cases to traffic infringements, in varying degrees.

With regard to the traffic example you guys are given, I would say that while it would perhaps seem a more fair system to allow a magistrate more disgretion to go over the circumstances, we simply don't have the time/money/desire to set up such a system when punishments are relatively minor.

[M@C D@DDY]

Originally Posted by shona1990

Wouldn't that just be a case of strict liability? If you're driving you should be aware of the laws. You can't exactly just complain and say "I didn't know I wasn't allowed to do that". Whether or not it harmed anyone, it's a law for a reason.

Following what Oliver has said, I don't think the point of laws are to follow them blindly. A famous quote by the Greeks were 'An unfair law should not be considered a law at all'. If not knowing cannot be used as an excuse, why does the government bother to post signs before red light cameras and continually warn you of the speed limit etc. It is the fringes of law, those that are not discerned from the media and common social values that are most obscure to common citizens. Thus in such cases, the legislative should be more flexible with the role the judiciary plays in the matter.

Most of us are aware that rape and murder are in breach of the law, but sometimes you cannot impose such a stringent requirement on people to fully understand all laws especially those with strict liability. Such a practice I feel is dangerous because it actively erodes public confidence, an essential ingredient in a strong legal system.

But the answer to the thread probably lies in that the public is made aware of those breaches which correspond with the heaviest punishment. BUT we have only really discussed laws that are widespread in the community. Any views on say white collar crime? Are people with expertise or experience in the field automatically deemed to have a complete understanding of the law?