"Ignorance of the law is no excuse"

[Rageaholic]

Let me ask you this. If you noticed that your street doesn't have a speed limit sign and that someone decided to fly down that street as fast as they wanted and ended up hitting someone you care for and they said "But I didn't know the speed limit wasn't 50 MPH"...

Would *you* accept that their ignorance of the law (the speed limit) was an excuse for them pelting 2,000+ pounds of automobile down a residential street filled with residents of said street? Would you say "Oh well, they didn't know the speed limit so that excuses them from any responsibility for slamming into my child while they were on their bike?

No. Because their actions actually hurt someone. I should have prefaced this by saying that there are a lot of laws in which ignorance should not be an excuse. These are mostly related to things that hurt people. Most people should know that doing dangerous shit should get you in trouble. But not all laws are based on that. There are stupid ones that no one should be expected to know. It's when people say "well ignorance of the law is not an excuse" for those cases that inspired this post. Ignorance is an excuse sometimes.

And here's where we get to the nitty-gritty of the argument. Yes sometimes the laws need to be changed. But until the majority of the populace stand up and do what is needed to change said laws, they are still the laws. Just because one doesn't agree with a law, doesn't mean that they get to violate that law.

Case in point. I don't agree with the laws against Cannabis use. With all the decriminalizing of it that is going on (people getting "must appear" tickets for possession instead of going to jail, etc) I feel that they should just legalize it and have done.

But until that day occurs, I'm not going to buy, possess, grow, smoke or otherwise ingest it into my body. I will obey the law even though I don't agree with it.

The law is the law. Our government was created with provisions to enact new laws, remove ones that are not applicable anymore, and to change existing ones to deal with new but still related situations. But we don't get to say "I don't agree with this law and so I'm going to violate it" and expect to get away with it.

I don't think this is as black and white as one might think. In general, I believe that we have the right to rant and rave against stupid laws as we want, but it's best to follow them for practical reasons (like avoiding jail time and legal fees).

HOWEVER, I can't say that statement applies universially. While not practical, civil disobedience isn't always wrong. Rosa Parks comes to mind. She's seen as a hero for her civil disobedience of truly unjust laws. Even better, what if a law forces you into a moral dilemma? Say a friend of mine of smoking marijuana and there's a law saying I have to rat him out. Well if I was in that situation, I wouldn't rat him out. While I wouldn't smoke marijuana myself, I'm not about to rat out a friend just so the state can make money. That's putting me in a situation where I have to choose between friends or states. (however, had said friend killed someone and I found out, my response might be different).

I could go on and on with several examples, but in general, a lot of this depends on the laws and circumstances.

[HYHYBT]

Let me ask you this. If you noticed that your street doesn't have a speed limit sign and that someone decided to fly down that street as fast as they wanted and ended up hitting someone you care for and they said "But I didn't know the speed limit wasn't 50 MPH"...

Would *you* accept that their ignorance of the law (the speed limit) was an excuse for them pelting 2,000+ pounds of automobile down a residential street filled with residents of said street? Would you say "Oh well, they didn't know the speed limit so that excuses them from any responsibility for slamming into my child while they were on their bike?

Or would you actually want the police to arrest the person and cart them off to face the judge for their actions?

Unfair question. Hitting someone is a separate offense from speeding. The blame for causing injury legitimately falls on the driver, but the blame for disobeying the speed limit belongs SOLELY on the highway department or whoever either didn't post the sign or removed it. (Driving too fast for conditions is a bit of a different matter, but unless it's obvious that 50 is too fast, that ought not apply. And there's no reason to assume obviousness, either in your hypothetical or in the real-world example that preceded it.)

A better question would be this: what kind of person knows people are driving much faster than they ought through their neighborhood AND that this is at least partially because there is no sign saying to do otherwise, yet doesn't fight to get a sign installed?

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

Unfair question.

The question may be unfair and may be a bad example. But the point behind it still stands. Would anyone in this forum REALLY accept negative consequences of someone else's actions happening to them if the person who caused it said "Well shucks! I didn't know that [action(s)] were against the law!" as a valid excuse?

I don't think this is as black and white as one might think. In general, I believe that we have the right to rant and rave against stupid laws as we want, but it's best to follow them for practical reasons (like avoiding jail time and legal fees).

Oh we have the right to rant and rave. That's in the first amendment covering freedom of expression. I have the right to say that a lot of laws are causing more problems than they prevent. However until said laws are changed or repealed...I will still obey them no matter how stupid anyone thinks they are.

HOWEVER, I can't say that statement applies universially. While not practical, civil disobedience isn't always wrong. Rosa Parks comes to mind. She's seen as a hero for her civil disobedience of truly unjust laws.

Unfair example. There is a HUGE difference between ignorance of a law (which is your point) and civil disobedience. Civil disobedience means that you are aware of the law, are aware of how unfair said law is, are willing to act against said law, and are ready to face the consequences of said actions.

Lenny Bruce standing up for the First Amendment by not complying with the obscenity laws, Larry Flynt and his battles regarding pornography, the aforementioned Rosa Parks who had just had enough to name three.

They knew the laws and fought against them to make a point, to take a stand against the injustice of it all and to use the consequences of their actions to further their ability to make the much needed points. They were in no way ignorant of the law.

Even better, what if a law forces you into a moral dilemma? Say a friend of mine of smoking marijuana and there's a law saying I have to rat him out. Well if I was in that situation, I wouldn't rat him out. While I wouldn't smoke marijuana myself, I'm not about to rat out a friend just so the state can make money.

But there you say it. In that situation you are not ignorant of the law. You jolly know what it is and make the decision to stand against it. Perhaps not as openly or with the intent to fight the system, but you know the law. You are not ignorant of it.

And that's the point. You can try to change a law through legal means or you can perform an act of civil defiance against the laws. In either case you know the law and are taking an active role for change. Otherwise you are either obeying the laws or are disobeying them (knowingly or unknowingly).

[Rageaholic]

Lol, I probably should have started a new thread on civil disobedience instead of posting it in a thread on ignorance of the law.

[KitterCat]

I. Hate. This. Expression.

It's one of the many snarky expressions that piss me off. I imagine cops especially love this one because they can get away with picking on people who made a few harmless mistakes. But because their mistake broke teh lawls cops feel morally justified in being punitive dicks.

I am so with you on this sentiment. And I hate hate how it always seems to be either law enforcement (police, lawyers, politicians, ect) or overbearing perfectionists telling you“the law is the law and you can not question it” that like using this.

Considering that our own federal government does not know how many laws we have on the books, I’d say that there are way to many and in non-victim based crimes, far to many that could be used as ignorance of the law defenses. Per Library of Congress website *“ The current Code has 51 titles in multiple volumes. It would be very time consuming to go page by page to count each federal law, and it also does not include case law or regulatory provisions.” In 1982 the federal laws were attempted to be counted. “In a project that lasted two years, the Department compiled a list of approximately 3,000 criminal offenses. This effort, headed by Ronald Gainer, a Justice Department official, is considered the most exhaustive attempt to count the number of federal criminal laws.” Mind this was done 30 years ago, we’ve defiantly had more added to the books and different ones depending on state to state mandates.

Simply put there are far to many for a person to even hope to know them all. A person should not have to wade through 51 volumes for federal law, however many are needed for there state and heaven forbid that they decide to go traveling in order to not find themselves breaking some tiny ill thought overbearing mandated so that they don’t get fined. So to people who seem to think I have to have them all memorized, please tell me how many, because even the government doesn’t know.




* http://blogs.loc.gov/law/2013/03/fre...aws-are-there/

[Gravekeeper]

Its a bit of an irksome expression as it tends to get thrown out there when there's a legitimate issue with a certain law that would be outside the realm of common sense. Obviously we all know you shouldn't murder, rape, steal, assault, etc. But I think ignorance is perfectly valid when it comes to more obscure things like property or zoning laws. As there tends to be a fair amount of weird by laws in any given state, province or city.

If you're getting fined because the city has a bylaw that you can't have a white fence within 100 meters of a school crossing, then ignorance should be perfectly valid as a defense. That sort of thing isn't something a person would think to check on before repainting their fence. -.-

[Ginger Tea]

Let me ask you this. If you noticed that your street doesn't have a speed limit sign and that someone decided to fly down that street as fast as they wanted and ended up hitting someone you care for and they said "But I didn't know the speed limit wasn't 50 MPH"

I don't drive, but I think the main speed limit is 30-35 unless stated, that is kinda the thing, unless stated can mean you are allowed to go faster, 35 in the fast lane will get you in as much trouble as 70 in the slow on a motor way.
Whatever is the listed highways code or similar speed limit is the speed limit, unless you encounter a sign telling you to go slower, or in fact go to say 50 for a bit.

The police are like that. For everyone that makes the news for abusing his/her power, there are plenty who do an admirable job of serving and protecting the citizenry of the area they're assigned to patrol.

There are basically two types of cops that make it to the news on a regular basis
Bad cops
Dead cops

Rarely good cops unless its some mayor press gala shindig thing.

As for genuine I never knew that was a law, there are still laws 'in effect' from time immemorial about walking ones pig on a lead etc and it was only 2010 that the UK passed a law saying slavery was illegal in the UK, funny thing that, we know it's a bad thing, but cos we didn't actually have slaves over here (or least not in the same way) we never had to say we will arrest you for doing it.
Good old QI

So that co worker I joked about buying off her dad, well I just missed out on that window of legal opportunity to own her by a year, hell I even got to the stage where we were discussing numbers, he thought I was joking, bless.

[HYHYBT]

[aquote]But the point behind it still stands. Would anyone in this forum REALLY accept negative consequences of someone else's actions happening to them if the person who caused it said "Well shucks! I didn't know that [action(s)] were against the law!" as a valid excuse?[/quote]The question is not about "accepting negative consequences." The question is about WHERE the blame lies. If there is no rational way to expect the person to have known, then the fault does not lie with them. Speed limits are required to be posted, at least unless it's the maximum possible. If the limit is NOT posted, then the blame lies squarely on the government for not posting or maintaining their signage, not with the driver who cannot possibly read what isn't there.

If you're getting fined because the city has a bylaw that you can't have a white fence within 100 meters of a school crossing, then ignorance should be perfectly valid as a defense. That sort of thing isn't something a person would think to check on before repainting their fence. -.-

At least the penalty should be both waiveable and small if the offensive fence is corrected quickly once the owner is notified of the violation.

And that's part of the problem there: the desire to use the maximum available punishment even for unintended offenses where no harm is done. In those cases, the first time at least, a warning is far more appropriate.

[Rageaholic]

Its a bit of an irksome expression as it tends to get thrown out there when there's a legitimate issue with a certain law that would be outside the realm of common sense. Obviously we all know you shouldn't murder, rape, steal, assault, etc. But I think ignorance is perfectly valid when it comes to more obscure things like property or zoning laws. As there tends to be a fair amount of weird by laws in any given state, province or city.

If you're getting fined because the city has a bylaw that you can't have a white fence within 100 meters of a school crossing, then ignorance should be perfectly valid as a defense. That sort of thing isn't something a person would think to check on before repainting their fence. -.-

Exactly the point I'm getting at. I couldn't have said it better.

And that's part of the problem there: the desire to use the maximum available punishment even for unintended offenses where no harm is done. In those cases, the first time at least, a warning is far more appropriate.

But then the state wouldn't get any money off of fining people for stupid shit.

Seriously. That's why a lot of people have problems with cops. Not all of them are punitive assholes, but enough of them are.

[Kheldarson]

But then the state wouldn't get any money off of fining people for stupid shit.

Seriously. That's why a lot of people have problems with cops. Not all of them are punitive assholes, but enough of them are.

Except, in juxtaposition there, how is that the cops' fault?

There's a town in SC heading towards Myrtle Beach that is a notorious speed trap. This was designed by the town to help them profit off the tourist traffic better.

How is it the cops' fault that they are given quotas and amounts that they must meet to keep their jobs? They can only let so many people go, right, otherwise they'll be the ones in trouble.

Not that I don't think they should listen at least. And some of them do before explaining why you're an idiot for trying (hi, too many speeding tickets...). But they still have their jobs to do and only so much leeway, ya know?

[crashhelmet]

Except, in juxtaposition there, how is that the cops' fault?

There's a town in SC heading towards Myrtle Beach that is a notorious speed trap. This was designed by the town to help them profit off the tourist traffic better.

How is it the cops' fault that they are given quotas and amounts that they must meet to keep their jobs? They can only let so many people go, right, otherwise they'll be the ones in trouble.

Not that I don't think they should listen at least. And some of them do before explaining why you're an idiot for trying (hi, too many speeding tickets...). But they still have their jobs to do and only so much leeway, ya know?

Wouldn't that fall under laws against entrapment or some such?

EDIT: Quick google-fu reveals it varies State by State.

[Kheldarson]

Wouldn't that fall under laws against entrapment or some such?

Nope. It's a small town, so it drops to 35 off a 50 with barely any warning (I think there's like one sign either end notifying of the change like right before the speed limit sign. Like right at the limit it's supposed to be). And then drops to 25 right around the school. Which causes a bigger problem coming the opposite end because then it's 50 to 35 to 25 all within...I want to say 100 yards? But totally legal.

[crashhelmet]

I actually got caught in an issue like that once in Hollister, CA. I was driving back to LA from San Jose and Hwy 152, aka Pacheco Pass, was closed for some reason (it was the day after Christmas, so probably snow). I had to take a different route to get to I5 that involved driving through Hollister. The speed limit goes from 65 to 25 instantly, with one single sign that was, thankfully in my defense, obstructed enough to get me out of the ticket.

[HYHYBT]

I don't think that's even legal in Georgia; certainly I've never run into it. Other than a school zone, I can't think of a single example of the limit changing by more than 10 mph at a time, with adequate spacing between drops to just coast down unless there's a hill involved, and (possibly only almost) always a "reduced speed ahead" warning. To do otherwise seems downright crooked.

[Andara Bledin]

Wouldn't that fall under laws against entrapment or some such?

If it's posted, and you can't slow down fast enough, sucks to be you.

I can get from 80 to 30 between spotting a sign and reaching it, and a second's worth of though should be more than it takes to realize that you can't go highway speeds through a town, so I really have no sympathy for this particular issue.