“Ignorantia juris neminem excusat” is Latin for ‘ignorance of the law is no excuse.’ This doctrine is an intrinsic part of criminal law. Essentially, this principle holds that all members of society must be knowledgeable of the statutes that govern society. “The ignorance of law doctrine rests on the thought that people are in general charged with knowledge of the existing criminal law, which accordingly people should be on notice to ascertain.” Opponents’ primary argument is that for each member of society to know and understand every federal, state, and local ordinance would be impractical. “[M]any laws are nearly impossible to understand in all of their complexity, and the whole corpus of federal law is in fact impossible to know.”
Laws centuries ago were morally-rooted. That is, society saw certain actions wrong and thus sanctions could be justified for persons breaking these laws. Society is fluid, which is to say our societal morals have evolved. Thus, we must account for this evolution in our analysis of whether ignorance of the law should be permitted as an excuse. I would argue that all members should have knowledge of and understanding of certain statutes such as murder as these statutes are morally-rooted. However, I would assert that for the majority of the legal codes, they are too complex and lengthy for an average citizen to fully understand. With these ideas in mind, I argue that ignorance of the law is no longer has firm standing in the legal arena. First, we will examine the claim that laws are morally-rooted, thus ignorance of the law ought not to be an excuse.
The notion that morality has a heavy presence in the criminal code is becoming false, thus vacating the argument that because the laws are morally-bas...
... middle of paper ...
...y convolutes what is supposed to be known as the justice system.
In conclusion, there are many issues that surround the ‘ignorance of the law’ excuse. We have reached a difficult juncture as to what is the lesser evil. Is it punishing an individual that had no intent of breaking the law but his actions broke a law or is it letting a truly guilty individual off because proving his intent was too hard? I would conclude by saying that letting someone off would be the lesser of evils. It ought to be hard to prove someone guilty of an offense and it would be irreconcilable to punish someone for a crime they truly did not commit. As a solution, I would propose that all laws are simplified and placed into one place that any reasonable and regular citizen would be able to find. Only then would there be some justification for prohibiting the use of the ignorance defense.
Banks, C. (2013). Criminal Justice Ethics: Theory and Practice, Edition 3. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
With the implementation of a nationwide set of legal codes, this could potentially allow new lawyers access to a much larger client base as well as the ability to legally represent a family or friend in court. However, there are still some very key components that need to be addressed in order for the code to be used in the most efficient and effective manner. Whether it is a general disconnect between the definitions of crimes or the oversimplification of terms, the Model Penal Code still has quite a few obstacles to overcome before it will be uniformly adopted by all states. However, with today’s modern communications network, getting the greatest legal minds of our generation together would be far easier than when it was back in 1961, and by doing so could make the necessary changes that are needed for the code to become truly effective.
Legal consciousness refers to how people’s different conceptions of law determine whether they mobilize or resist the law (SOC216, Jan. 26). Susan S. Silbey and Patricia Ewick disclose three narratives of how people perceive the law: before the law, with the law and up against the law (2000). Individuals who are before the law fundamentally treat legality as an objective realm that is removed from their ordinary social lives (Silbey and Ewick 2000). They believe that the law is a hierarchical classification of rules that is both majestic and impartial (Silbey and Ewick 2000). In regards to ‘with the law’, legality is described and played as a game, in which existing rules can be arrayed accordingly and new rules can be invented in order to serve the individual’s interests (Silbey and Ewick 2000). Legality is described as a “terrain for tactical encounters” where
The central element of calculation involves a cost benefit analysis: Pleasure versus Pain, (5) Choice, with all other conditions equal, will be directed towards the maximization of individual pleasure, (6) Choice can be controlled through the perception and understanding of the potential pain or punishment that will follow an act judged to be in violation of the social good, the social contract, (7) The state is responsible for maintaining order and preserving the common good through a system of laws (this system is the embodiment of the social contract), (8) The Swiftness, Severity, and Certainty of punishment are the key elements in understanding a law's ability to control human behavior. Classical theory, however, dominated thinking about deviance for only a short time. Positivist research on the external (social, psychological, and biological) "causes" of crime focused attention on the factors that... ... middle of paper ... ...
Final Exam Kristina McLaughlin Saint Joseph’s University CRJ 565 Question 1: Word Count The judicial system is based on the norms and values that individuals are held to within society. When a person is found guilty of committing a criminal act, there must be a model that serves as the basis of what appropriate punishment should be applied. These models of punishment are often based off of ethical theories and include retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and restoration. The retribution model of punishment views the offender as responsible for their actions and as such, the punishment should fit the crime (Mackie, 1982).
Ultimately, Rachels offers a more comprehensive consideration of the different potential interpretations of moral desert. His comparison of three legal responses using four distinction values make it very clear to the reader that, despite concerns over the value of moral desert, retribution is the most desirable option currently available to the criminal justice system. His evaluation of retributivism, deterrence and rehabilitation answers Shafer-Landau's central assertion that a comparative evaluation of retributivism could not be made within a short article. Furthermore, Rachels's argument is more pragmatic, making intuitive sense to those who may
Listening to criminals is less likely. Perspective three, out of the three perspectives presented to me this is the perspective I agree with the most. Breaking the law is not the way to go, and as it states in this perspective breaking the law often comes at a greater personal cost. I agree that you would be morally impacted by breaking the law instead of being a responsible adult individual and speaking out in a respectful
Ignorance has been accepted in America in many ways, one being the law. “In most countries the law recognizes that a person who acts in ignorance of the facts of his action should not be held criminally responsible” (Britannica Encyclopedia). This means that it is okay to do wrong as long as the person doesn't know that it is wrong, because he/she is uninformed about the situation not the law that he/she will get away with it. With this system being based on trust, and not the physical proof that the person was unaware it allows the law to be deceived and allows possible criminals to abscond. The law says that “when the defendant has in good ...
A controversial issue regarding the law has been whether it is ever right to disobey the law. Some people would argue that it is not always morally wrong to disobey the law. From this perspective, laws that are considered immoral or unfair hinder society through unnecessary restrictions. However, others argue that it is never right to disobey the law. Socrates, who maintains this view, discusses the issue of obeying laws in Crito by Plato, arguing that a citizen “[has] undertaken, in deed if not in word, to live [their] life as a citizen in obedience to us [the Laws]” (271). According to this view, obeying the law is a citizen’s duty, and a person who is not obedient to the law fails to fulfill his duty. In sum, the issue is whether disobedience of the law is moral or immoral.
The Law is always changing and it reflects today’s society. However, the Law is not perfect because it is made by humans. The Law does not always coincide with Justice and Morality, for example, Carroll has lawfully been acquitted, but justice hasn’t been served, because everyone knows that he has been acquitted on a technicality. Also, abortion is legal, but many people feel that it is immoral. Because of laws in need of repealing and the inconsistencies between Law, Justice and Morality, it is not surprising that the Law can often be seen as an ‘ass’.
Donald Black proposes a framework for the behavior of law from the social perspective, considering law per se, not involving the psychology of human behavior. As any generalizations, Black?s propositions are abstract, but if one inserts realism into them, their ability to predict will diminish. Explaining all of the aspects of social behavior, Black arrives at the predispositions to deviant behavior, providing a reduced and generalized model on functioning of law, specifically outlined and organized.
Crimes are not ‘given’ or ‘natural’ categories to which societies simply respond. The composition of such categories change from various places and times, and is the output of social norms and conventions. Also, crime is not the prohibitions made for the purpose of rational social defence. Instead, Durkheim argues that crimes are those acts which seriously violate a society’s conscience collective. They are essentially violations of the fundamental moral code which society holds sacred, and they provoke punishment for this reason. It is because of these criminal acts which violate the sacred norms of the conscience collective, that they produce a punitive reaction. (Ibid)
Punishing the unlawful, undesirable and deviant members of society is an aspect of criminal justice that has experienced a variety of transformations throughout history. Although the concept of retribution has remained a constant (the idea that the law breaker must somehow pay his/her debt to society), the methods used to enforce and achieve that retribution has changed a great deal. The growth and development of society, along with an underlying, perpetual fear of crime, are heavily linked to the use of vastly different forms of punishment that have ranged from public executions, forced labor, penal welfare and popular punitivism over the course of only a few hundred years. Crime constructs us as a society whilst society, simultaneously determines what is criminal. Since society is always changing, how we see crime and criminal behavior is changing, thus the way in which we punish those criminal behaviors changes.
Offenders are protected today by both the rule of law, ensuring that all offenders are treated equally, regardless of their age, sex or position in the community, and due process, which ensures that all offenders are given a fair trial with the opportunity to defend themselves and be heard (Williams, 2012). Beccaria’s emphasis on punishment being humane and non-violent has also carried through to modern day corrections. It is still the case today that offenders must only receive punishment that is proportionate to the crime they have committed and the punishment is determined by the law. The power of the judges and the magistrates to make decisions on punishment is guided by the legislation and they do not have the power to change the law (Ferrajoli,
The criminal law takes immense part in society, including the following functions: to deter people from acts that harms others or society. Furthermore, people who do not follow the rules that are being set by the authority, they will be punished. The criminal law is there to guidance the general public on the manners of behaviour, which are seen acceptable by society. (Jonathan Herring; criminal law, page 4 eighth edition)