Ignorance Of The Law Is No Excuse

[Al Norris]

From another post in another thread, Wildalaska said:

Ignorantia juris non excusat .....

One of the foundations of our system of laws.

Ken, I believe I want to challenge you on this. Hence this new thread

First off, many States claim "copyright" on their statutes. This alone present a dilemma to the average citizen (Oregon and Idaho, to name just two). How does a citizen obtain the freedom to have at hand, all the statutes, if only the criminal code, to avoid the mischance of violating said codes? How about the controlling case law?

As Kafka wrote in "The Problem of Our Laws," "Our laws are not generally known; they are kept secret by the small group of nobles who rule us."

So who does the citizen have to purchase from, in order to be educated upon the statutes and controlling case law? Further, should the citizen even have to pay for this information, some of which may be vital in day-to-day living?

In Idaho, the State says it retains copyright to the Idaho Statutes, and it may not be published except through an authorized publishing company. Idaho allows for a public law library, but that library is in Boise. Should I have to travel 150 miles, one-way, in order to know this material?

Each county has a law library, situated in the County Courthouse. But that library is for use by the Court and its officers (read: attorneys). I actually need permission of the Court to peruse the files.

Each city retains copies of its own ordinances. But I have to go to the City Office and read them there. I am allowed to pay for copies of the pages of interest (at 15 cents per copy), but no full work is available to the common citizen.

How then, is a citizen able to move from ignorance to enlightenment, without paying exorbitant fees, to know that which is assumed to be known?

So far, I am just discussing State Criminal Code, Regulations and controlling case law. Now add in the Federal Statutes, Federal CFR's and controlling case law (both District, Circuit and SCOTUS decisions)... Just how expensive would this get?

A citizen should not have to pay a cent, nor travel anywhere, in order to have copies of the laws they need to operate on a day-to-day basis.

I refer you back to Kafka.

 

[WINSTON THE WOLF]

Sounds like democracy at it's finest. I mean does it really make any sence? How dare a citizen want to learn the laws they are expected to abide by.

 

[Sarge]

Al,

Most of it is now available online; USC FCR RSMO (MO) and a good many others. Most even have a search feature, although some can be maddening to use.

The advantage to using these gov't maintained databases is that is that you get continually-updated information; you don't have to wait for the supplements to come out. This has been a boon to me and I use it daily.

Case law research is another story and law offices everywhere pay for access to collaborated works. Many of those are available to the general public, also for a fee, so you are essentially on equal footing with those 'officers of the court' in that respect.

'Making sense of it all' however is another matter entirely

And finally there are good many offenses in the various criminal codes that require at least some degree of culpable mental state as an element. Possession of narcotics comes to mind. If for instance you rented a car, never popped the trunk and by some misfortune happened upon a 'random checkpoint' with 50 pounds of doobie in the trunk- you would not be convicted in MO unless the prosecution could prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you knowingly possessed it.

Perhaps 'ignorance of the law' truly is no excuse in many cases; but with the vast resources available today, there is certainly little excuse to be ignorant of it.

 

[Bond007]

There are many problems with the present state of the law. However, the option to be unacquainted with the law as an affirmative defense is far worse a state.

While there are numerous alternatives which make the law available to most citizens (although clearly not to all). In my opinion a larger problem is that the law is often written in such a way to make its meaning inaccessible and subject to multiple interpretations by educated persons.

 

[johnbt]

Idaho statutes - www3.state.id.us/idstat/TOC/idstTOC.html

See Title 18 - Crimes and Punishments

I didn't look, but if it's like the Code of Virginia site it's searchable.

Case law? I call my buddy, he's paid the fees for the on-line services.

John

 

[tony pasley]

Ignorance of the law can not be helped in this day with so many laws on the books and different ones conflict with each other. The average person breaks 50 laws per day and never knows it, many L.E.s don't even know enough of the current laws on the books. We have a legal system that is by the lawyers, of the lawyers, and for the lawyers.

 

[Wildalaska]

Ken, I believe I want to challenge you on this. Hence this new thread

Come on Al, its Sunday night

OK, is your complaint the concept of Ignorantia juris non excusat qua concept, or the monopoly of the state in dissembling such laws.

As others have pointed out, the corpus of State and Federal laws are easily found on line....is there a particular scenario that has raised this issue?

How about we posit this...it is incumbent on the citizen to know the law and make such efforts as are necessary to learn the law. The State cannot impede one from doing this...

Is the fact that you have to ask permission from the County Court an imposition? If such, couldnt you raise a claim before that smae Court that the library should be open to all?

The cost factor leaves me a bit troubled (the .15 per copy)

The average person breaks 50 laws per day

OK, which ones did you break? The only ones I broke today was that boulevard stop when noone was looking and my refusal to wear a seat belt. I know I broke both of them.

How dare a citizen want to learn the laws they are expected to abide by.

can we have a break from the noise, this is supposed to be a reasoned discussion...

WildsoyoureallyequateoursystemwithkafkaAlaska TM

 

[divemedic]

The number of federal criminal offenses one can break is not precisely known, because the USC not only contains an estimated 10,000 criminal laws, but it also references administrative code (like the tax code, and the ATF regulations, to name a couple) It is estimated that there are approximately 30,000 administrative regulations. There are so many Federal laws, and they are so convoluted, that even the FedGov is not certain how many criminal laws there are.

If in fact there are 40,000 laws, and you study each one for an average of five minutes, and there are an average of 5 cases creating controlling case law for each criminal law, and you spend 15 minutes reading each case (so that you can understand how that law is applied), If you spent 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, no holidays off, and no vacations, it would take you 6 1/2 years to complete the federal laws.

Then you would have to begin reading state and local laws. Better get to work, because ignorance of the law is no excuse.

 

[tony pasley]

A few laws I broke today, I mowed grass without a shirt on, I did not break the tax seal on the empty pack of cigarettes I threw away, I am in possession of a lottery ticket( even though N.C. has a state lottery) I have no way of knowing all the others that are on the books. I have to work for a living.

 

[Crosshair]

I always thought it would be a good idea to require that all laws should be understandable to someone with a high school education.

I wonder if someone could actually bring this up on a legal challenge. Your honor, it would take 6 1/2 years to read up on all the laws. It is physically impossible to be completely knowledgeable on the law.

I suppose it would depend on the obscurity of the law.

 

[Wildalaska]

A few laws I broke today, I mowed grass without a shirt on, I did not break the tax seal on the empty pack of cigarettes I threw away, I am in possession of a lottery ticket( even though N.C. has a state lottery) I have no way of knowing all the others that are on the books. I have to work for a living.

Stop being silly.

I'd love to see an analysis of what the percentage is of criminal prosecutions in the US that are based on the enforcement of an obscure law...

De minimis non jurat lex.

WildisityourcivicdutytoknowthelawAlaska TM

 

[Al Norris]

Things that I'm aware of.

• Many, but not all states have their statutes, online.
• Some, but not most, have their administrative codes, online.
• Some (many?), but not all, have a limited number State Supreme Court Cases, online.
• Few State court decisions are online.
• I'm not aware of any County or City ordinances that are online.
• The Federal Statutes are on line.
• Most of the CFR is online, though some are restricted (care to know the regulations by which the TSA is run? Restricted. Yes, there are some others that affect citizens directly).
• Most of the other administrative rules (a lessor form of regulation) are online, but by no means, all.
• All SCOTUS Cases can be found, online.
• Many, but by no means all, Circuit Court decisions can be found online.
• A few other assorted Federal cases may be found, online.

Fact: All of the above legislative acts and judicial reasonings/decisions have been ruled by the Supreme Court of the United States to be property of the public. Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591, 668 (1834). Banks v. Manchester, 128 U.S. 244, 9 S.Ct. 36 (1888) (which cites Nash v. Lathrop, 142 Mass. 29, 6 N.E. 559 (1886)).

So, to answer Sarge (and peripherally, Johnbt), I know what's available; How to use it; How to search for it and how to read it. Can this be said of the entire public? Is everyone online?

Simply because Thomas-Westlaw have compiled many sources for a fee, does not mean that the public should be charged for access to public domain documents, when going to the source. Said source, is not Westlaw.

While a persons mental state may be a bearing on some criminal law (usually, laws that are malum in se), there are just as many that do not take such into consideration (malum prohibitum). Constructive possession, anyone?

OK, is your complaint the concept of Ignorantia juris non excusat qua concept, or the monopoly of the state in dissembling such laws.

Both.

As others have pointed out, the corpus of State and Federal laws are easily found on line.

As I have outlined above, much is missing - lex corpum incompletus.

As divemedic has pointed out, with the (daily) growing body of law, it has become rather disingenuous to continue to say: Ignorantia juris non excusat.

 

[Sarge]

Well then, there's only one answer- another beauracracy.

"The Government Office of Legal Information"

Taxpayer-funded legal information, only an 800-call away. If we're lucky, it won't be staffed by rejects from HUD.

Somehow the thought of this does not give me the warm fuzzies.

 

[ZeroJunk]

Here is a resource that might keep you from getting on the wrong side of some local ordinances.




http://www.municode.com/Resources/code_list.asp?stateID=33

 

[hammer4nc]

First off, many States claim "copyright" on their statutes.

And, apparently, acting on those claims...

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080416/133815864.shtml

Oregon Using Copyright Law To Prevent Other Sites From Publicizing Oregon Law
from the just-as-the-law-intended dept

Well here's a story about copyright that's so bizarre it makes you think that there must be a mistake somewhere -- but it seems to be completely true. Apparently, Oregon is complaining to sites like Justia (which publish public domain legal documents) that they are violating copyright by republishing some of Oregon's laws.

And,

http://www.boingboing.net/2008/04/15/oregon-our-laws-are.html

 

[NukemJim]

If ignorance of the law is no excuse why do we need a regular court, an appeals court and a state supreme court?

I am completley serious, not joking.

If as a private citizen I am held responsible to know the law and can be sent to jail if I do not know the law, why is the judge who is a lawyer not held to the same standard.

Again I am not being sarcastic. To me "sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander".

And yes I also have a problem whith federal agents and politicians who have citizens charged who lied to them but who are not punished when they lie to citizens.

NukemJim

 

[toybox99615]

what good is an excuse

should ignorance of the law be considered an excuse that allows you to do whatever you want and claim you did not know it was illegal? What a cluster truck that would make most of the time.

 

[Samurai]

I have to interject here.

I believe that you guys are making a small leap-in-logic:

Current U.S. Copyright law does not prevent someone from having "access" to public laws. Law books are kept on the shelves at numerous public libraries across the country, and they are open to the public for viewing, inspection, and study. The only thing U.S. Copyright law does (maybe) is prevent people from making copies of the books the laws are printed on. In order to make copies, you have to pay a royalty.

The law is, in theory, available. And, in terms of "ignorance is no excuse," there is no rule that states that you must own a copy of the law book in order to be familiar with the law. You can certainly go read the law without having a copy to take home with you.

So, there's the distinction. I perceive that the point presented here is that it is unreasonable to be expected to "know the law" when you have to pay to own a copy of the law books. But, I believe it is perfectly reasonable to expect someone to "know the law" when a copy of the law book is available at public libraries across the country.

Just my $0.02.

 

[sholling]

Ignorance of the law would not be an excuse if the sum total of laws were something that an average person could absorb in an afternoon or two. Say 100 pages or so. Stealing, robbing, raping, murder are so common sense that ignorance is no excuse. It's when you get into something esoteric that a first offense needs to be a educational warning.

I'll give a great example. There were California law firms shaking down small businessmen for nitpicking handicap violations. Do you know the maximum push weight of the front door of your store? .1lb too much could have cost you $6000 per violation. Ten handicapped shills could have cost you $60,000. How about the maximum height of the mirrors in your restroom? $6000 per. How about any curbs, steps or ramps in your store? The court of appeals got so fed up with the endless shakedowns that they finally ruled that ignorance of the law was an excuse and that a warning had to to willfully ignored before a suit could go forward. How many laws and regulations can each and every citizen be reasonably expected to have memorized? 100? 500? 1,000? 10,000? 100,000? Millions? How many local, state and federal laws did you violate when you buried the kids' hamster in the back yard? Zoning? heath and safety, environmental? Did a vet declare it legally dead? If not there's animal cruelty.... The Nazis had law that doing anything that you should have known was wrong was a crime. I'd like a bit more clarity than that.

 

[Yellowfin]

What bothers me equally as much as citizens being themselves ignorant of the law is the impunity with which they allow those in office to live above it.