Scribd
Upload
1K views3 pages

Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat

Ignorantia juris non excusat is a legal principle that ignorance of the law is not an excuse for violating the law. The rationale is that if ignorance was allowed as an excuse, people could claim ignorance to avoid liability even if they knew the law. There are some exceptions, such as if a law was unclear or a person received incorrect advice from officials. The principle assumes laws are properly published and accessible, though historically many citizens could not read laws due to illiteracy. Some modern interpretations consider a person's lifestyle and difficulty of learning all laws.

Uploaded by

Xymon Bassig
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views3 pages

Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat

Ignorantia juris non excusat is a legal principle that ignorance of the law is not an excuse for violating the law. The rationale is that if ignorance was allowed as an excuse, people could claim ignorance to avoid liability even if they knew the law. There are some exceptions, such as if a law was unclear or a person received incorrect advice from officials. The principle assumes laws are properly published and accessible, though historically many citizens could not read laws due to illiteracy. Some modern interpretations consider a person's lifestyle and difficulty of learning all laws.

Uploaded by

Xymon Bassig
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Ignorantia juris non excusat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search This article does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2007)

Ignorantia juris non excusat or Ignorantia legis neminem excusat (Latin for "ignorance of the law does not excuse" or "ignorance of the law excuses no one") is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because he or she was unaware of its content. In the United States, exceptions to this general rule are found in cases such as Lambert v. California (knowledge of city ordinances) and Cheek v. United States (willfulness requirement in U.S. federal tax crimes). European law countries with a tradition of Roman law use the expression nemo censetur ignorare legem: nobody is taught to ignore the law.

Contents
[hide]

1 Explanation 2 Translation 3 Into law 4 See also 5 References

[edit] Explanation
The rationale of the doctrine is that if ignorance were an excuse, a person charged with criminal offenses or a subject of a civil lawsuit would merely claim that he or she is unaware of the law in question to avoid liability, even though the person really does know what the law in question is. Thus, the law imputes knowledge of all laws to all persons within the jurisdiction no matter how transiently. Even though it would be impossible, even for someone with substantial legal training, to be aware of every law in operation in every aspect of a state's activities, this is the price paid to ensure that willful blindness cannot become the basis of exculpation. Thus, it is well settled that persons engaged in any undertakings outside what is common for a normal person, such as running a nuclear power plant, will make themselves aware of the laws necessary to engage in that undertaking. If they do not, they cannot complain if they incur liability.

The doctrine assumes that the law in question has been properly published and distributed, for example, by being printed in a government gazette, made available over the internet, or printed in volumes available for sale to the public at affordable prices. In the Criminal Law, although ignorance may not clear a defendant of guilt, it can be a consideration in sentence, particularly where the law is unclear or the defendant sought advice from law enforcement or regulatory officials. For example, in one Canadian case, a person was charged with being in possession of gambling devices after they had been advised by customs officials that it was legal to import such devices into Canada.[citation needed] Although the defendant was convicted, the sentence was an absolute discharge. In addition, there were, particularly in the days before satellite communication and cellular phones, persons who could genuinely be ignorant of the law due to distance or isolation. For example, in a case in British Columbia, a pair of hunters were acquitted of game offenses where the law was changed during the period they were in the wilderness hunting. In reaching this decision, the court refused to follow an early English law case in which a seaman on a clipper before the invention of radio was convicted even though the law had been changed while he was at sea (Bailey (1800) Russ & Ry 1).

[edit] Translation
Presumed knowledge of the law is the principle in jurisprudence that one is bound by a law even if one does not know of it. It has also been defined as the "prohibition of ignorance of the law". The concept comes from Roman law, and is expressed in the brocard ignorantia legis non excusat. The essential public character of a law requires that the law must apply to anyone in the jurisdiction where the law applies. Thus, no one can justify his conduct on the grounds that he was not aware of the law. Generally, a convention exists (by some called "the essential preliminary rule") by which the laws are issued and rendered accessibile by methods, authors and means that are simple and well known: the law is readable in certain places (some systems prescribe that a collection of the laws is copied in every local city council), is made by certain authorities (usually sovereign, government, parliament, and derivative bodies), and enters into effect in certain ways (many systems for instance prescribe a certain number of days - often 15 - after issue). This is commonly intended as a constitutional regulation, and in fact many constitutions or statutes exactly describe the correct procedures. However, some recent interpretations weaken this concept. Particularly in civil law, regard can be had to the difficulty of being informed of the existence of a law considering the lifestyle of the average citizen. On the penal side, the quality of the knowledge of the law can affect the evaluation of the animus nocendi or the mens rea, in that certain subjective conditions can weaken personal responsibility.

The theme was widely discussed, also for political reasons, at the time of the Enlightenment and in the 18th century, given the heavy proportion of illiterate citizens in European countries (who would have some difficulties being aware of all the laws in a country). It was then argued that both the presumed knowledge and the heavily increasing corpus of national legislation were working in favour of lawyers rather than citizens. (The equivalent modern day claim being that the law is a trade secret and the public process a business owned and operated by the legal profession.) In recent times, some authors have considered this concept as an extension of (or at least as analogous to) the other ancient concept (typical of criminal law) that no one can be punished under a law that was issued after the action was committed (non-retroactivity of the law. See ex post facto). This interpretation is however disputed, given that the matter would hierarchically more properly refer to a constitutional doctrine rather than to a civil or penal one. Some modern criminal statutes contain language such as stipulating that the act must be done "knowingly and wittingly" or "with unlawful intent," or some similar language.

Common questions

Powered by AI

Presumed knowledge of the law imposes an expectation that citizens are aware of and comply with the law, shaping their actions accordingly. This presumption ensures that individuals are held accountable irrespective of their actual knowledge, promoting uniformity and deterrence. Its impact is significant, as it reduces the opportunity for lawful excuses based on ignorance, thereby maintaining the integrity of legal systems and preventing subjective defenses based on claimed legal unawareness .

Presumed knowledge of the law is predicated on the accessibility of laws to the public, meaning laws must be published effectively and be available in plain, known locations. This ensures that everyone in the jurisdiction can know the laws and thus abide by them. Laws are typically published in government gazettes, available online, or sold, thereby fossilizing the convention that people are assumed to be aware of all legal stipulations within their area. This systematic dissemination is considered a prerequisite for the imputation of legal knowledge .

Modern interpretations highlight the challenge of ensuring citizens are adequately informed about an increasingly voluminous and complex legal framework. Legal systems attempt to mitigate these challenges by improving legal accessibility, such as providing laws online and ensuring public notices are comprehensible. These efforts reflect an acknowledgment that absolute presumed knowledge is unrealistic for the average person. Nevertheless, the enforcement of 'Ignorantia juris non excusat' continues to lean towards upholding citizens' accountability for knowing relevant laws .

The doctrine of presumed legal knowledge places a burden on the legislative process to ensure laws are clearly articulated, widely published, and easily accessible. Legislators must consider the readability and understandability of legal text to genuinely impart knowledge upon the public. This obliges lawmakers to balance legal precision with clarity, impacting how laws are drafted and how legislative bodies interact with the public to maintain informed compliance .

Historically, critiques of 'Ignorantia juris non excusat' stemmed from the public's inability to know all laws, especially during times of high illiteracy. Critics argued that the principle disproportionately favored lawyers and the legal profession, as they were more capable of navigating complex legal systems. In modern contexts, increases in legal complexity and volume exacerbate this critique, suggesting the law has morphed into a 'trade secret' managed by legal professionals, potentially distancing the general public from legal comprehensibility .

Technological advancements have increased the dissemination and accessibility of legal information, making laws more available through online platforms and digital archives. This has theoretically enhanced citizens' ability to gain legal awareness, potentially strengthening the doctrine 'ignorantia juris non excusat'. Despite these advancements, challenges remain in ensuring that citizens not only have access but also comprehend complex legal terms, highlighting a gap between availability and understanding .

The non-retroactivity principle, which prevents punishment based on laws enacted after a committed action, is sometimes considered analogous to 'ignorantia legis non excusat'. This is because both principles protect individuals from unexpected legal liabilities. However, this interpretation is debated, as non-retroactivity is typically regarded as a constitutional doctrine, while 'ignorantia legis non excusat' is more relevant to civil and penal law contexts. Therefore, the hierarchical legal frameworks may not support viewing them as direct extensions of one another .

Exceptions to 'Ignorantia juris non excusat' can occur when laws are too obscure, newly enacted, or not properly disseminated. For instance, exceptions in the U.S. have arisen, like Lambert v. California, concerning knowledge of city ordinances, and Cheek v. United States, relating to the willfulness required in tax code offenses. These cases suggest that where a person could not reasonably have known the law due to lack of exposure, clear dissemination, or complexity, exceptions can be made .

The complexity of modern legal codes challenges the practicality of 'ignorantia juris non excusat', as individuals find it increasingly difficult to remain informed about all applicable laws. This complexity suggests potential unfairness in the doctrine's strict application, as ordinary citizens lack the resources to fully understand every legal nuance. While the doctrine promotes accountability, it can cause unintended harshness, prompting calls for reforms in how legal knowledge is presumed and disseminated .

'Ignorantia juris non excusat' is a legal principle that holds a person cannot escape liability for breaking a law by claiming ignorance of it. The rationale is that allowing ignorance as an excuse would enable individuals to avoid liability by simply asserting unawareness of the law, even if they are aware. This maintains legal accountability and prevents willful blindness from becoming a defense. The principle operates on the assumption that laws are accessible to those within the jurisdiction, thus attributing knowledge of all laws to them .

You might also like