4 ms·
One should think that this would enable anyone accused of a crime to argue "Your Honour, I could not know that my act was illegal as the law in question is unac
by Tor3 7y ago
One should think that this would enable anyone accused of a crime to argue "Your Honour, I could not know that my act was illegal as the law in question is unaccessible to me."
- OscarCunningham 7y agoIgnorance of the law is, famously, not a legal defence.
- will_brown 7y agoAnd fair notice of the law is, famously, an exception to the ignorance of the law rule and is a lawful defense.
- marcoperaza 7y agoThis doesn’t do the work you might think it does. To properly know the contents of the law, to the high standard you’re demanding, you would have to read every court case any bit related to the prohibition in question. The annotations merely include a non-binding, incomplete summary of that case law. Fair notice is pretty narrow. I am pretty sure (could be wrong), that there is no requirement to codify even. If a state wanted, it could leave its laws uncodified and require you to go through every page of legislative records to discover what the law is. What it can’t do is pass literally secret laws and then hold them against you. There are states that still have common law crimes inherited from before the revolution. These are crimes that the state legislature has never defined, but are recognized by judicial custom (though it is widely agreed that even the courts in those states could not define new crimes in this way)
- golem14 7y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat
- Tor3 7y agoBut when the 'ignorance' isn't because I didn't bother to learn about the word of the law, but (as in the case discussed) it's made unavailable. I can't learn it. What then?