Why do you seek “modern” alternative? As far as I know, it still applies in all developed jurisdictures. Together with presumption of innocence.
It’s absolutely essential. Otherwise every single defendant would claim “I’m sorry, your honor. I didn’t know that murder/rape/stealing is illegal”. It’s almost impossible to prove or disprove general knowledge so we must assume - at least from a legal perspective - that everybody knows the law if we want to apply that law at all. Of course that doesn’t mean that any random person on the street needs to be familiar with every single law that applies to forestry but that they are required to read up on those laws before they pick up a chainsaw and head into the forest. There may be a few obscure laws that could apply to you without your knowledge but those are mostly so low stakes that we can give people a warning for the first offense and then reasonably assume they will know and follow that law in the future.
Now, that all applies to ignorance of the law. On the other hand, there is ignorance of your own actions which indeed can get you out of a conviction because it indicates a lack of intent. A simple example: if you visit someone and on the way out, you grab their jacket because of your own because they look similar, it’s very likely that you haven’t done anything illegal, it was just a mistake. Same if you’re not aware that something you’re doing might endanger others. Those might still get you in trouble for negligence but one could reasonably construct a case where you do something that looks perfectly safe to you but out of pure coincidence ends up killing someone. In those cases, you’re clearly not guilty of a crime.
And to add onto what you’re saying, most countries have a form of licensure for various activities to make sure that ignorance isn’t a valid excuse. Driving is likely the most common license that a person can get, and that requires written and practical tests at minimum.
Not necessarily practical. I didn’t have to take a practical exam to get my license. Just had to have my parents sign a paper saying they spent X amount of hours in the car while I was driving.
I’ve lived in a few countries and not heard of this. Do you care to share a few details?
It was in Texas. At the time the state just didn’t require a practical exam for moving from a learners permit to a full license. I just had to take a laughably easy written exam.
So no practical from learners to full license, or no practical at all for the whole process?
None at all for the whole process, although I think they changed it a while back.
Thanks for the clarification. That’s craziness to me. I chose the wrong (or right) states to live in while I was there
It is something I have never thought to question.
A citizen in a democracy has a right to all information, and to decide for themselves. Any other system seems in conflict with “ignorance is not an excuse.”
How can I know what I am not allowed, or think your proper thoughts before they cross your mind to inform my ignorance.
I’m not sure you’re interpreting that phrase in the way other people are. I think the standard interpretation of “ignorance is not an excuse” is “not being aware of a crime being illegal is not a legitimate defence if you commit that crime”.
You seem to be thinking more about freedom of information, or education?
It’s a legitimate defense to some crimes. For example, in Texas it’s illegal to own more than 6 dildos.
Ha, it seems to be legit:
https://onwardtexas.org/trending/is-it-illegal-to-own-more-than-six-dildos-in-texas-yes-it-is/
Some reddit thread mentioned that it’s a good way to make it hard to run a sex store. Anyone know of any other rationale?
It is just a higher level of abstraction with the overlying ethical principles and morality, like a conversation with an autocrat where their word is law.
But what do you actually mean by “ignorance is no excuse”? You said that any system other tah democracy conflicts with the statement. But the standard meaning (the fact that you didn’t realise you were breaking the law isn’t an meaningful excuse in court) absolutely applies in autocracies or whatever. The point is certain actions are illegal and doing them will get you in trouble, whether you knew in advance or not.
I feel like you’ve got another meaning in mind, can you try and express it clearly?
Unfortunately it doesn’t seem to work that way in reality. While the criminal laws are all public, there’s other rules and regulations that may not be.
At least where I’m from as an example, the building code is a paid product you have to purchase from the government. Yet if you build a home and don’t follow it, they will not allow you to live in it.
That one really bugs me. Anything the government produces in terms of rules or regulations should be available to the public for free.
Why do we need an alternative? Is there a lot of otherwise reasonable adults getting into legal trouble because of some obscure laws?
