Opinion Ignorance of the law is no excuse...

[MikeMcMann]

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is a foundational building block of the law in Western societies.

Or is it?

The foundational nature of the premise was to ensure someone who committed a crime could not use the idea that they did not have the 'intent' to break any laws or 'knowledge' that such a law existed to avoid punishment for breaking the law. Intent and knowledge are key to this premise.

Intent is one of the hardest things in law to prove. Most law is based on another foundational block that guilt must be determined 'beyond a shadow of a doubt', and one can almost always create doubt around intent unless the person blatantly states their intent.

Thus why 'ignorance of the law is no excuse' was basically adopted as a governor to the issue of intent or lack of knowledge. It basically stated 'neither of those things, even if true, are going to allow you to avoid conviction'.

But in fact Ignorance of the Law being an excuse was protected at the highest levels in what might be classified as White collar crimes.

Gov't in particular has very clear requirements in many areas that regardless of what laws are ACTUALLY broken that 'intent' must be established or the offender cannot be convicted. This almost always provides a legal out for the offender even after a law has been determined clearly to be broken.

And that seems to be the clear intent.

So is the foundational premise of Ignorance of the law not being an excuse a sham? Something created to make sure the typical perpetrator of non white collar crimes (typically poorer) would never avoid conviction while at the same time ensuring there was an out for the typical offender of white collar crimes (wealthy or powerful), particularly those in gov't?

Do you care?

 

[Javelina]

unless your entering our country illegally, then it's katy bar the door

 

[HereticBD]

Got Hillary off the hook.

 

[2DUM2TAP]

A guy just got a $2K fine in BC for feeding a bear a timbit. Will be honest.... I didn't know that was against the law.

 

[SammyPops]

A guy just got a $2K fine in BC for feeding a bear a timbit. Will be honest.... I didn't know that was against the law.

I think it falls under the don't be stupid law, you know b/c the bear might have ate him.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Got Hillary off the hook.

I wanted to avoid this becoming a partisan thing and suddenly people deciding this is right or wrong based on their need to defend 'their side', so i avoided specific examples as there are many on all sides.

 

[MikeMcMann]

A guy just got a $2K fine in BC for feeding a bear a timbit. Will be honest.... I didn't know that was against the law.

Perfect example tbh.

And yet we can cite examples of gov't officials doing things that are far more egregious and any attempt to hold them legally accountable stops at 'we cannot establish intent, thus the issue is not going to be pursued or prosecuted'.

 

[JonesBones]

I think it falls under the don't be stupid law, you know b/c the bear might have ate him.

It is dangerous for the bears too. They will become more human friendly which is dangerous for them. It is common sense really.

 

[MikeMcMann]

I think it falls under the don't be stupid law, you know b/c the bear might have ate him.

ya. But more so the bear might eat the next person who comes along as the bear approaches because it thinks 'hey these funny looking things that I usual avoid actually have food to give me so i should approach him'.

It is why I hate the groups who go down and purposely lure in sharks and have 'experts' in their groups hand feeding them. What happens when the next scuba diver goes down and the shark that would usually avoid him now approaches thinking 'is that food is in his hand'? These guys always say 'there is no proof that feeding sharks increases the likelihood of an attack' but what the f*ck would constitute proof? The shark would have to say 'ya I bit him because I thought like the last guy feeding me, that was a fish in his hand'.

Anyway we digress but you just triggered me with one of my bigger pet peeves.

 

[all caps]

Everyone can become a criminal any second. None of you are immune from it.

Just comply, etc

 

[SammyPops]

ya. But more so the bear might eat the next person who comes along and the bear approaches because it thinks 'hey these funny looking things that I usual avoid actually have food to give me so i should approach him'.

It is why I hate the groups who go down and purposely lure in sharks and have 'experts' in their groups hand feeding them. What happens when the next scuba diver goes down and the shark that would usually avoid him now approaches thinking that is food is in his hand? These guys always say 'there is no proof that feeding sharks increases the likelihood of an attack' but what the f*ck would constitute proof? The shark would have to say 'ya I bit him because I thought like the last guy feeding me, that was a fish in his hand'.

Anyway we digress but you just triggered me with one of my bigger pet peeves.

And once you get hooked o those timbits ….

 

[Cirris]

Got Hillary off the hook.

I still remember Comey's press conference when he's just spewing out BS about intent, like it's murder or manslaughter.

Speaking of murder, RIP Seth Rich. You were a good Bernie Bro. To bad you exposed the evil empire.

 

[JonesBones]

ya. But more so the bear might eat the next person who comes along and the bear approaches because it thinks 'hey these funny looking things that I usual avoid actually have food to give me so i should approach him'.

It is why I hate the groups who go down and purposely lure in sharks and have 'experts' in their groups hand feeding them. What happens when the next scuba diver goes down and the shark that would usually avoid him now approaches thinking that is food is in his hand? These guys always say 'there is no proof that feeding sharks increases the likelihood of an attack' but what the f*ck would constitute proof? The shark would have to say 'ya I bit him because I thought like the last guy feeding me, that was a fish in his hand'.

Anyway we digress but you just triggered me with one of my bigger pet peeves.

I love Werner Herzog movies. He did a documentary on Antarctica. I would recommend it. During one scene they poke a seal with some kind of large syringe and put it out, do tests, tag it etc. After all this, they let the seal go and the scientist is like, "See that? He's fine. Just goes back to doing normal seal things." I'm thinking, how would this guy know how this seal feels or it damaged its psyche or changed its behavior or something. I just witnessed a fuckin alien abduction. That is what aliens supposedly do to us. Put us out and run a bunch of weird tests. They are probably telling themselves after doing anal probing on humans, "See, he is back to doing normal human things. No harm done."

There is massive projection of intent and the feeling states of animals.

 

[Cirris]

And once you get hooked o those timbits ….

Them Timmy fuckers invaded NY state. They're everywhere around here. It's like a cult of commuters every morning getting their daily dose of drugs in the drive thru.

 

[EndlessCritic]

But in fact Ignorance of the Law being an excuse was protected at the highest levels in what might be classified as White collar crimes.

Gov't in particular has very clear requirements in many areas that regardless of what laws are ACTUALLY broken that 'intent' must be established or the offender cannot be convicted. This almost always provides a legal out for the offender even after a law has been determined clearly to be broken.

The issue is that there is a separate principle in law: You cannot be convicted of an offence that does not exist.

White collar crime is often so complex that it's extremely difficult to prove what happened, or whether what occurred was technically criminal.

 

[SammyPops]

Them Timmy fuckers invaded NY state. They're everywhere around here. It's like a cult of commuters every morning getting their daily dose of drugs in the drive thru.

Canada's finest bro.

 

[MikeMcMann]

And once you get hooked o those timbits ….

@Clippy once almost bit the hand off a person waiting for a bus thinking they were holding out a Timbit for him. Mistakes happen.

 

[panamaican]

There's a significant difference between ignorance of the law and intent to conduct a certain action.

If you intend to do something then ignorance of law isn't a protection. The law generally covers this difference with strict liability laws where intent doesn't matter.

Speeding and theft are decent places to look at this. Speeding for example is a strict liability crime - it doesn't matter if you intended to speed. So long as you exceed the speed limit you're guilty. Ignorance of the speed limit doesn't protect you. Theft on the other hand requires the intent to keep something. If you think you have permission to borrow something then it's not theft, even if it's not yours.

White collar crime often requires intent to do something specific. But plenty of low level crimes also require intent. I don't think white collar crimes are particularly exceptional in this area.

 

[MikeMcMann]

The issue is that there is a separate principle in law: You cannot be convicted of an offence that does not exist.

White collar crime is often so complex that it's extremely difficult to prove what happened, or whether what occurred was technically criminal.

We have seen multiple cases recently, where it was clear laws were broken but they were stopped short of pursuing for prosecution because the 'intent' shield existed which made the investigator or prosecutor say 'even if I could establish the law was broken proving intent would be near impossible so we are not proceeding'.

Again there is no such protections existing for the bulk of crimes. if, as you say, in fact there is a question about whether a law exists that would apply to both white collar and blue collar crimes. Both would use that as a defense. that is very different than what we are discussing here.

 

[Clippy]

@Clippy once almost bit the hand off a person waiting for a bus thinking they were holding out a Timbit for him. Mistakes happen.

How was I suppose to know it wasn't a timbit