“ IgnorantiaJuris non excusat ” which translates to ‘ignorance of the law excuses not,’ refers to the legal principle that being unaware of a particular law is not an excuse to escape liability or conviction for violating that particular law ( Narasimham, 2016) . In most cases, ignorance of the law has never deemed a defense for criminal acts. Even with the thousands of laws at the federal and state levels of the government, people are still held accountable for breaking laws for which they claimed to have had no knowledge. It is argued that if ignorance of the law were allowed as a defense for breaking laws, then the laws themselves would actually have no effect or importance. At the layperson level, ignorance of the law is applied in different ways with regard to the perceived morality of the defendant’s actions or course of conduct. Moral and neutral defendants are easily accorded leniency, while immoral defendants are convicted in instances where all the defendants violated similar laws. In certain instances, a defendant is only held accountable if they are found to be willfully ignorant of a particular law or act at the time of their action of breaking the law. Willful ignorance shows that a person violates the law with intent, with the belief that they would be able to use ignorance as their defense. The paper discusses the issue of ‘ignorance of the law’ and explains why it is not a legal defense, and also discusses how it relates to or how it is influenced by morality.
Ignorance of the Law
The doctrine of “IgnorantiaJuris non excusat” asserts that if ignorance were accepted as an excuse for breaking the law, then people charged with criminal offenses would simply claim that they were not aware that they were violating the law and consequently avoid liability ( Narasimham, 2016) . This would take effect even in cases where the accused persons were actually aware of violating the law. The doctrine, thus, assumes that everyone is aware of all the laws, as a way of ensuring that willful blindness is not used as the basis of exculpation. In the normal sense, it is impossible to know all the laws even as a person who practices law. The ordinary individual, basically, does not know of a majority of the laws in existence, either at the state or the national level. But this is not a critical problem.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The doctrine assumes the law has been made available to the public through government printed gazette or made available over the internet, among other avenues. In the olden days, due to distance and isolation, it was much more convenient to acquit individuals for breaking the law with the defense that they were not aware that they were violating a law. In such cases, it easy to assume that people were not aware of certain laws as they were not properly promulgated or made available for the entire public. Today, however, with all the numerous sources accessible to the public, it is easy to assume that people are at least aware of the basics of every law.
Generally, laws protect and prevent people from participating in immoral or activities already perceived in society as wrong or unjust. A person is therefore not expected to steal, kill, beat up others, break into other people’s homes, or participate in fraudulent acts, just to name a few criminal acts. Not knowing the law is, therefore, not an excuse to break laws put in place to ensure the maintenance of morality and peaceful coexistence in the society. The only instance where a crime is said to be null or ‘not committed’ is when the law in question was not already in place at the time it was violated, and an individual cannot be held liable for a crime whose legislation does not exist. People are supposed to stay away from getting involved in the activities deemed as immoral, wrong, or unjust. The law comes in to ensure that those who break it are convicted and made liable while the victims are accorded appropriate justice.
Morality and Ignorance of the Law
Acknowledging that ignorance cannot be used as a defense for breaking laws upholds morality by ensuring that willful blindness does not become the basis for exculpation, especially in instances where an individual’s course of action is deemed as immoral. A person who sells alcohol to the underage is engaging in an immoral activity and putting the lives and future of those children at risk. Claiming unawareness of the law is highly irrelevant in such a situation, and the individual must be liable for the breach of law. The perceived morality of a defendant or defendant’s action may also determine the direction taken with regards to the application of the doctrine of ignorance of the law ( Husak, 2016) . At the layperson level, this, normally, is the case, and depending on the perceived morality of an individual’s actions, they could either received leniency or conviction for breaking the law while using ignorance as their defense. In most cases, neutral and moral individuals get to receive leniency while those perceived as immoral are held liable for breaking the law for similar crimes, where all claimed to be unaware of the law.
The issue of morality and ignorance of the law can be quite complex in certain circumstances. A case of an employee who accidentally puts cyanide instead of sugar in her colleague’s tea prompts the question of morality in the claim of ignorance. Serious medical attention may be required, and sometimes, the colleague may not survive. The employee acted in good faith by attempting to add sugar to her colleague’s tea. Although the employee seems innocent, depending on the outcome of the action, others may view the action as moral or immoral. If the colleague dies, for example, the employee may be accused of murder. Her only defense would be that she was not aware of the nature of the substance that she put in her colleague’s tea.
The bottom line remains that ignorance of the law is unacceptable, and a person should never expect to avoid liabilities for breaking the law based on ignorance ( Husak, 2016) . Immoral and offensive individuals would easily get away with crimes if they were allowed to base their actions on ignorance. There are circumstances, of course, where persons may be acquitted after breaking the law based on ignorance. Lambert vs. California case of 1957, for instance, tells a story of such instance, where a conviction was overturned after it was established that the accused was not absolutely aware of breaking the law. The accused had not registered as a felon upon settling in California, as indicated in the law, and this led to her conviction. Being unaware of this law, the accused ignored the law and continued to stay without having to register as a felon.
Willful Ignorance
The question of whether an individual had the intent or prior knowledge while breaking the law often comes into play in certain circumstances. Sometimes, people are aware of the risks involved or the immorality or illegality of the action in which they are about to partake. At times people suspect that an action is illegal but choose to ignore the details. Willful ignorance constitutes an infringement of the law and is enough to render one as a convict in an offense ( Zimmerman, 2018) . Willful ignorance cuts deeper as, in this case, the accused was aware of the nature of their activity and only chose to ignore it, as well as its consequences.
Consider the case of John, who buys a large, brand new smart TV from his friend Matthew. John does not earn enough money to buy a smart TV of that size. Matthew works at a store that sells electronics. Sometimes there are a lot of products at the store that it is impossible to notice if one is missing. Matthew often steals and sells products at half or quarter their prices to his friends and relatives. John is thrilled about the TV but wants to know why he gets to buy it at an incredibly low price. As Matthew begins to explain, John realizes that this may not be good news, and he stops Matthew. He believes that if he does not know about the full details, then he is safe. In this situation, John is entirely wrong as he is willfully ignorant and is, therefore, liable. John cannot use his ignorance as a defense in the court to avoid liability.
“ IgnorantiaJuris non excusat ” as a doctrine relates to morality in the sense that it ensures that willful blindness does not become the basis of exculpation and that immoral or wrongdoings are punished accordingly. If people are allowed to base their illegal actions on ignorance, then it would be quite difficult to curb crime and exercise justice. People are expected to be aware of the law, given that the law correlates to the moral norms of society. Participating in immoral activities or committing injustices directly relates to violating the law. Simply because a person was ignorant of a particular law does not render then free of liability or taking responsibility for their actions.
References
Husak, D. N. (2016). Ignorance of law: A philosophical inquiry . Oxford University Press.
Narasimham, R. L. (2016). 04_Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat.
Zimmerman, M. J. (2018). Recklessness, willful ignorance, and exculpation. Criminal Law and Philosophy , 12 (2), 327-339.
