-
(单词翻译:双击或拖选)
by Michael W. Flynn
First, a disclaimer: Although I am an attorney, the legal information in this podcast is not intended to be a substitute for seeking personalized legal advice from an attorney licensed2 to practice in your jurisdiction3. Further, I do not intend to create an attorney-client relationship with any listener.
Today I discuss a rather annoying but effective rule of law: ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Bryan and Luke independently wrote on the same day the following questions:
Let's pretend that I grew up in the backwoods of Kentucky, and upon moving into civilization wanted to learn all the laws I need to abide4 by. Where could I go to find them all? And given that many are written using legal jargon5, how would I understand them when I finally did read them? How can such a complicated system be considered just and fair?
and
We all know that “ignorance of the law is no excuse” but what obligation does a law-making body have to make changes to the law public knowledge so that the general public is not ignorant?
This maxim6 published in Roman law, “ignorantia legis non excusat,” provided the basis for this notion in modern civil and common law. It translates directly as “ignorance of the law does not excuse.”
To read all the laws that apply to you, you can visit a local law library to read the published federal, state, county and municipal laws that are on the books. Also, most jurisdictions7 publish online for easier access. These law libraries also publish the cases that interpret the laws. Sounds fun, right?! I know I want to spend my Saturday reading the Civil Code.
And yes, most laws are written in completely inaccessible8 legal jargon, or cross reference each other so many times you need a chart to even start to understand what you are responsible for knowing. Attorneys who have been through the hell that is law school, the bar exam, etc., need help figuring out areas of the law with which they are not familiar.
So, why is it fair and just for the state to assume and require all people to know its laws, and punish people for failing to abide by laws that even trained attorneys have difficulty reading?
The rationale for this rule is that a person could easily escape criminal or civil liability by simply claiming that he did not know about the law he broke. Early scholars reasoned that, in order to maintain order, the state must have the ability to enforce its laws against anyone entering its jurisdiction, even for a short period of time. If not, then both citizens and foreigners could flout9 the law, and the state would be impotent in keeping the peace and economic order.
With respect to the obligation the state has to publish its laws, many states have statutes10 or constitutional clauses that require them to publish in certain forms (in books or online for example) all their laws within a certain time period.
But, the doctrine11 does have limits. Consider an example: you walk into the hunting and fishing license1 office, pay for a license, and ask the employee how many fish you can catch in a single day. The employee tells you 10, and you go out to a local state park, catch your 10 fish and leave. On the way out, a ranger12 tickets you for catching13 too many fish – the law actually says you are limited to five. You might not be able to beat the ticket in full, but a judge or commissioner14 might reduce your fee because you made a good faith effort to comply.
Also, to be convicted under criminal law, some laws require that you knowingly or purposefully act with disregard of the law. So, if you can show that you reasonably attempted to comply with the law, you might get convicted of a lesser15 offence or get a reduced sentence.
Overall, this really is what lawyers are here to do: interpret the law for you. If you hire a lawyer, rely on his statements, but the lawyer is wrong, you can sue for malpractice. Not a great system, but the alternative, letting people off who claim ignorance, is worse.
Thank you for listening to Legal Lad’s Quick and Dirty Tips for a More Lawful16 Life. You can send questions and comments to。。。。。。or call them in to the voicemail line at 206-202-4LAW. Please note that doing so will not create an attorney-client relationship and will be used for the purposes of this podcast only.
1 license | |
n.执照,许可证,特许;v.许可,特许 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 licensed | |
adj.得到许可的v.许可,颁发执照(license的过去式和过去分词) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 jurisdiction | |
n.司法权,审判权,管辖权,控制权 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 abide | |
vi.遵守;坚持;vt.忍受 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 jargon | |
n.术语,行话 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 maxim | |
n.格言,箴言 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 jurisdictions | |
司法权( jurisdiction的名词复数 ); 裁判权; 管辖区域; 管辖范围 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 inaccessible | |
adj.达不到的,难接近的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 flout | |
v./n.嘲弄,愚弄,轻视 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 statutes | |
成文法( statute的名词复数 ); 法令; 法规; 章程 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 doctrine | |
n.教义;主义;学说 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 ranger | |
n.国家公园管理员,护林员;骑兵巡逻队员 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 catching | |
adj.易传染的,有魅力的,迷人的,接住 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 commissioner | |
n.(政府厅、局、处等部门)专员,长官,委员 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 lesser | |
adj.次要的,较小的;adv.较小地,较少地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 lawful | |
adj.法律许可的,守法的,合法的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|