Ignorance, A Defence In Law (Real)

Is Ignorance A Defence?

Author: Aaron Rice
Date: 1997/06/12
Agree? Disagree? : Have Your Say
Buy Books About This Topic At: Amazon UK Amazon US
Send This Article To A Friend: Email It Use Telepathy

"Ignorance is no defence!" How often have you heard that? How often have you also thought to yourself that if the person-in-question knew it was wrong, they wouldn't have done it in the first place?

Of course, if is perfectly fair to say that when partaking in anything that relates to any aspect of law, it is a good idea, and in fact considered your responsibility, to make sure you know the rules. It is also fair, however, to say that when those rules are far and wide it can make matters a little difficult, unless you happen to be a memory freak [1].

Law is also a complex area for the amateur, which at the last count includes roughly everybody. You should, however, know some basic pieces of law that get you by; for example, it is generally known that the legal system severely frowns upon theft, arson, and murder [2]. There are other areas, though, that prove to be a little more lazy, and even the upholders of the law in question are unsure about them.

One might ask at this point about the concept of punishment, and what it is supposed to achieve. The following are some options:

1. A Deterrent. The idea of the "punishment" is to discourage people from performing the crime in the first place. The theory is that, seeing as you might have to pay a fine of one hundred pounds for not paying a fifty pound tax, it is probably a good idea to pay it.
2. A Punishment (of course). This is to take you to one side and say, "That was bad." This can be seen as a future deterrent (ie. do it again, and we do this again to you), and also...
3. A Preventative. The principal here is if you are, for example, in prison, you cannot kill anyone else (present company excluded).

On a claim of ignorance, a deterrent is irrelevant; you simply do not know about it, and therefore cannot avoid that which you know nothing about. A cry of "I know nothing" against punishment is also seemingly sensible; you did not know that it was the wrong thing to do, so a punishment is basic stupidity (ie. "Don't do it again!" vs. "If I knew it was wrong, I wouldn't have done it in the first place!").

But then you might say, "Okay, you didn't know -- prove it". This might be more difficult than you think. It is very easy to prove knowledge, but to prove ignorance is a little more tricky.

In the end, a balance should be made. The following are a few questions that could be asked:

1. Was there the opportunity to find out whether the act was illegal?
2. Were you capable of doing so?
3. Did you try?
4. If you failed, did you try again?
5. Did you try hard and find nothing?
6. Did you even suspect the act was illegal?
7. Did you think it might be a little bit wrong [3]?

If the answers to those questions imply innocence, perhaps that is exactly what you are. The essence of criminality is intent, and if you can prove that your crime is not one of intention, that is surely some defence.

[1]	Don't think about it. If you are one, you'd remember.
[2]	Actually, this depends on the country in question. In some parts, these are, or at least appear to be, the basic essentials of society, and the abilities to perform them are sometimes a qualification for high office.
[3]	To explain further: do you think that what you did could or should be illegal?

See also

• Ignorance