This article is classified "Real"
"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:
a) 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.
b) 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...
c) 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?