Ignorance of the law is no excuse

I have heard this before from local judges in my lifetime. I have also heard that it is said by most judges in other areas of this nation.

Why?

If you want to be your own counsel, there are special hearings to determine your ability to do so. There are several instances where an individual cannot initiate a legal action without a legal counsel to do it for them. To know the law, or have a chance to know the law, requires a law degree. To prove that you have the knowledge needed requires passing a bar exam. This gives you the knowledge it takes to know the law well enough to decipher the 600,000 some odd laws that act as a yoke for The People.

So with that said...how is ignorance of the law not an excuse? If I am expected by my government to know the law, then the responsibility lies on them to ensure that I am educated. At least, if they are going to make it as convoluted as it is.

Ignorance of the law SHOULDN'T be an excuse. But it is. Because they have made it so.

Would that statement stand up under legal scrutiny? If a judge were to say that, would there not be a rebuttal based in logic that what the judge states is wholly incorrect?

Spot on... I've also heard this on multiple occasions. What a load of crap.

If ignorance of law was no excuse, there would be no need for appellate courts. If law was perfect, they wouldn't call it "practicing" law. It's not, which leaves tons of room for incorrect interpretation, and even more so, for ignorance.

I'd love to find a bulletproof, egg in your face response that I could give a judge the next time I hear this come from one of their mouths.

~Namaste

www.politifact.com...

"Just on Jan. 1 of this year, there were 40,000 new laws put on the books in one day."

Have a look for an overview: www.ncsl.org...

40,000 new laws in a day or a year doesn't really matter tho does it? Nope, people have to know them all because ignorance of the law is no excuse.

And then what happens? Well, a fine of course. Or how about a stint in the Prison-For Profit System? Just to feed the machine.

Nice trap huh?

Peace

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


I would expect most people to know the difference between right and wrong anyway. Depending on the nature of the offense, not knowing it was against the law is a poor excuse in any judicial system.

If you're going to defend yourself, I can see why you would need to have a little background knowledge of how things work and what the law actually dictates - But I would say most of it is common sense. I know the context of 'the book', is a lot more complicated than that... but in most cases, it shouldn't take a law-school degree to figure things out.

If you committed a crime...
and you claim that you 'didn't know' you were breaking any laws...
You better have something that might support that statement...
Because it's true, ignorance of the law is NOT an excuse.

Anybody with basic mental capacity,
should know if something they're doing might get them in trouble.

reply to post by iunlimited491


This is the way it is SUPPOSED to work. But it doesn't.

Take taxes for example. The tax system should be simple: collect at the point of transaction. No need for the IRS. No need for tax forms. No need for H & R Block. You pay your taxes daily when you make a purchase.

But no....we have to have such a conflated system that you have to have a tax lawyer AND a tax accountant to handle anything much larger than living paycheck to paycheck.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Ok. I see...

You're right.

Unfortunately the system is designed that way.
Everything seemingly has to be passed through the legal system, and only someone with the proper credentials can validate it. In the court of law, people (lawyers) are only hired because they know the procedure, and they have the documentation to prove it. - They've studied the rules and are legally competent to present a case, either for - or against you.

It doesn't always make sense, I agree.
If someone truly believes they are capable of providing a sustainable case to defend themselves; they should have the right to present it... regardless of legal requirements, or anything else.

Too much fine print. Not enough bold lettering.
It makes things far more complicated than they should be.

But again, it depends on what the offense is.
Because if you're claiming that you didn't know what the law was, in the first place...
I would at least have to know why common sense didn't stop and make you think about what you were doing.

I'm not saying it's impossible - But it's all situational, I guess.

Ignorance of the law as no excuse made perfect sense! ...when the common law system was rule. Now that statute law is able to put thousands of new laws on the books, it is an absolute joke.

Remember that most tax systems were made simply to pay off war debts.

Ignorance of tax law?

As you said, a needed degree. You need a degree to even begin to understand all the criminal and tax codes. Many legal experts have come out and said that everyone in the population is guilty of breaking law mainly because there are so many on the books.

What's needed? Simple, reasonable, basic laws. Only a few of them that give people rights. (As that was the intention in Law during its inception).

If you go back to the Code of Hammurabi, straight until the Magna Carta, you will see that all laws were actually made to protect people (citizens) and give them rights. Not to prosecute them.

In fact, until the 1800s (If I remember correctly) there were not even public police officers or prosecutors. There were judges, and people had to prosecute the ones they accused themselves.

But now, we have industries built around policing and prosecuting. It's almost unimaginable that people can be persecuted by laws which they are not taught in school (which should be mandatory).

In the past, laws were very basic (as they should be).

You can not:
-kill
-steal
-cause harm to one's person
-cause harm to one's ownership (wealth)


etc, etc. All based on the inherent rights of people and not violating those rights of others. (Criminality)





Watch the following for a look into alternative ideas:




Rights and property ownership:

reply to post by iunlimited491


Would common sense tell you to file a 1099 for $500 in odd job costs to someone who patched some holes, touch up painted, and maybe mopped the floors?

Among the plethora of less than pleasant lessons that life has taught me, I've learned that ignorance of... anything... is no excuse. People expect perfection, or something very close to it. The sad thing is that there are few to no real teachers in life who explain how it's all supposed to work.

The world just has a very low tolerance (practically none) for ignorance. You're just supposed to know how to think/act/react in (insert whatever scenario here) , and if you don't know, then well, you're just at the mercy of the Gods.

reply to post by boncho


Well, and don't get me wrong. I am no fan of public education. But if i fire an employee for violating a policy that they weren't aware of, I absolutely will pay unemployment compensation for firing without cause. I cannot use the phrase, "Ignorance of policy is no excuse". I have to have them sign off on recieving the information before I can act on it.

Why does the government hold me to a standard that they are unwilling to hold themselves to?

Originally posted by okayimhere
Among the plethora of less than pleasant lessons that life has taught me, I've learned that ignorance of... anything... is no excuse. People expect perfection, or something very close to it. The sad thing is that there are few to no real teachers in life who explain how it's all supposed to work.

The world just has a very low tolerance (practically none) for ignorance. You're just supposed to know how to think/act/react in (insert whatever scenario here) , and if you don't know, then well, you're just at the mercy of the Gods.

You can see that on the internet forums daily. A headline pops up about someone doing something stupid. Then we get 100 million people talking about how they should be executed for being stupid. We see it all. the. time.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

 

Would common sense tell you to file a 1099 for $500 in odd job costs to someone who patched some holes, touch up painted, and maybe mopped the floors?

Ok, you lost me.
_____

what's your point?

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by boncho

 

Well, and don't get me wrong. I am no fan of public education. But if i fire an employee for violating a policy that they weren't aware of, I absolutely will pay unemployment compensation for firing without cause. I cannot use the phrase, "Ignorance of policy is no excuse". I have to have them sign off on recieving the information before I can act on it.

Why does the government hold me to a standard that they are unwilling to hold themselves to?

That is a problem right there. Getting people to sign things. The government forces you to sign into contracts left and right. Look at tax codes, *Signing here means you declare all this information valid and truthful, bla, bla, bla.

When I hire people, I too have to get them to sign their life away. (I'm also an employer.)

To be honest, we both want simpler contracts. I want my employees to work, and they want job security. If they are serious about this, I wouldn't fire them. If they aren't serious, go find a job somewhere else.

We really just need simple contracts for this, but I end up printing off 50 pages that covers the business legally, and the employee has no clue what their signing (neither do I to be honest.)

Law has become convoluted and ambiguous.

Originally posted by iunlimited491
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

 

Would common sense tell you to file a 1099 for $500 in odd job costs to someone who patched some holes, touch up painted, and maybe mopped the floors?

Ok, you lost me.
_____

what's your point?

I think the poster made their point with your response.

Originally posted by iunlimited491
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

 

Would common sense tell you to file a 1099 for $500 in odd job costs to someone who patched some holes, touch up painted, and maybe mopped the floors?

Ok, you lost me.
_____

what's your point?

If you contract and pay someone $500 in a year, you have to file a 1099 on them. They, in turn, have to declare the income for income tax purpose.

If you don't know this, then that is my whole point. It is kind of obscure, but not really. I bet Boncho knows this.

So do you see? Laws are nowhere near common sense.

reply to post by boncho


How?

First he's talking about how the government expects people to know the law...
Then he's talking about having to hire people in order to do anything in the legal system...
Then he says if you don't know 600,000 laws and pass an exam
- how can they expect you not to be 'ignorant' to the law.

Now he's talking about filing taxes...

I said it depends on the situation,

but obviously... everything I've said is incorrect...
so, again... what's your point?

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

 

So do you see? Laws are nowhere near common sense.

No. But the discrepancy between right and wrong is.

I mentioned that the law can be difficult to understand...
Your OP doesn't provide a situation, and I said that's what it depends on.

In most cases -
people should know the rules of what they're partaking in.

Otherwise, they really don't have anyone to blame but themselves.

Originally posted by iunlimited491
reply to post by boncho

 

How?

First he's talking about how the government expects people to know the law...

and that is all I have talked about.

Then he's talking about having to hire people in order to do anything in the legal system...

What? oO

Then he says if you don't know 600,000 laws and pass an exam
- how can they expect you not to be 'ignorant' to the law.

Same thing as the first thing you attributed to me: that you have to know the laws, no matter how expansive they may make them.

Now he's talking about filing taxes...

tax law, not filing taxes.

I said it depends on the situation,

but obviously... everything I've said is incorrect...
so, again... what's your point?

No, not everything you said.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

Ok, OP...
I think we are in some agreement, but had a brief misunderstanding.

I'll leave it at that, because our thoughts aren't really all that conflicting.
- just the demeanor in which they were presented and interpreted.

None the less,
good post.

Until next time.

Originally posted by iunlimited491

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

 

So do you see? Laws are nowhere near common sense.

No. But the discrepancy between right and wrong is.

I mentioned that the law can be difficult to understand...
Your OP doesn't provide a situation, and I said that's what it depends on.

In most cases -
people should know the rules of what they're partaking in.

Otherwise, they really don't have anyone to blame but themselves.

You need to reeducate yourself on what law actually is and what its original intentions are.

The first laws of the land:

With the mighty weapons which Zamama and Ishtar entrusted to me, with the keen vision with which Ea endowed me, with the wisdom that Marduk gave me, I have uprooted the enemy above and below (in north and south), subdued the earth, brought prosperity to the land, guaranteed security to the inhabitants in their homes; a disturber was not permitted.

The great gods have called me, I am the salvation-bearing shepherd, whose staff is straight, the good shadow that is spread over my city; on my breast I cherish the inhabitants of the land of Sumer and Akkad; in my shelter I have let them repose in peace; in my deep wisdom have I enclosed them.

That the strong might not injure the weak, in order to protect the widows and orphans, I have in Babylon the city where Anu and Bel raise high their head, in E-Sagil, the Temple, whose foundations stand firm as heaven and earth, in order to bespeak justice in the land, to settle all disputes, and heal all injuries, set up these my precious words, written upon my memorial stone, before the image of me, as king of righteousness.

Hammurabi's Code


The second major step in law:

The 1215 charter required King John of England to proclaim certain liberties and accept that his will was not arbitrary—for example by explicitly accepting that no "freeman" (in the sense of non-serf) could be punished except through the law of the land, a right that still exists.

It was preceded and directly influenced by the Charter of Liberties in 1100, in which King Henry I had specified particular areas wherein his powers would be limited.

Magna Carta



The laws of the land were meant to protect people from arbitrary prosecutions.

The fact that you don't see a difference between criminal law and tax law is the major issue, and the point I believe. The two are hardly related.

The government and private industry have been at odds with each other for centuries. These are two ruling parties whether or not it is promoted as such. Their quarrels and politics should remain outside of the public domain, and their resolutions should involve each other and not the citizen.

While some of the original laws are entirely outdated (the whole slavery thing) the intent and purpose remain as useful today as their inception. In fact laws were created to protect people from the ruling bodies and each other.

When you consider that a private government could exist which would have to solicit tax dollars, one could envision a government and private industry which was heavily influenced by the citizens of the state as opposed to how it is now.

Each person pays X amount of tax dollars: Choice of paying to A, B, C and D whichever portion of X one wishes, as long as total X is paid.

ex.

My tax rate is $10,000 per year.

I pay:

$2500 to A
$0 to B
$5000 to C
$2500 to D

My family is a family of scientists and engineers. C in this case is schooling and universities. B is military spending. A is for medical/healthcare. And D is infrastructure.

etc, etc, etc.

It is another way to look at things. To consider possibilities. To consider people as the driving force behind a nation and to make absolutely every contributing member of society responsible for how it develops.



I seriously doubt many could handle even the notion of such. But interesting none-the-less to ponder the idea.