adm@cbneb.UUCP (06/25/84)
#N:cbnap:17000001:000:941 cbnap!whp Jun 25 16:06:00 1984 All the information I have been reading about the storage capacity of the human brain set me to wondering. If the storage capcity is less then ~30 gigabits, and if the total amount of relevant law (``relevant'' meaning all applicable federal, state, and local laws) exceeds this number, then would ignorance of some specific law be an acceptable defence, on the grounds that fore-knowledge of that law was impossible? It seems to me that it isn't right to pass a law (or not allow some defence) impossible of fulfillment. With a system of precedent law, it seems more than likely that the limit has already been passed in the USA. As an example, suppose you go for a car trip to another state. In that state is is illegal to cross a single solid divider line, but it is legal to do so in you home state. You cross the line to pass, and receive a citation. In this case, if I were a judge, I think I would allow a defence of ignorance.
fred@varian.UUCP (Fred Klink) (08/08/84)
Ignorance of law is not a defense in the strict legal sense, although in the case you cite it may work. Ignorance of fact, however, is a legitimate defense if-- and here's the catch-- you can prove it. Examples: a person on trial for burglary claims that he was unaware that breaking into a building was illegal. Since the defendant is innocent until proven guilty, the prosecution would have to begin by showing that the defendant had prior knowledge of the laws agaisnt burglary. As you can see ignorance of the law would *always* be used as a defense because disproving it is legally, if not actually, impossible. Drifting a bit from reality, lets say the same burglar we used above had "broken into" the apartment next door to his late on a Saturday night. There had been a power failure so the hallway was dark and the defendant had recently moved into the building. Furthermore, the next door neighbor had left her door unlocked and nothing had been taken. The burglar could legitimately claim ignorance of the fact that he was entering the wrong apartment and use this as his legal defense. These are only principles of law. The practice is seldom so clear cut.
ron@brl-tgr.UUCP (08/13/84)
Another example of the ignorance of fact rule is what is done at the Hopkins University campus. The campus is generally open with no gates or even NO TRESPASSING signs. But when a person makes himself enough of a nuisance to be thrown off campus, he is officially notified that he is not welcome there and if caught again he will be arrested. We had to prove that the warning was given when we had one such person arrested. -Ron