Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site varian.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!zehntel!varian!fred From: fred@varian.UUCP (Fred Klink) Newsgroups: net.legal Subject: Re: Ignorance of the law - (nf) Message-ID: <228@varian.UUCP> Date: Tue, 7-Aug-84 18:25:02 EDT Article-I.D.: varian.228 Posted: Tue Aug 7 18:25:02 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 10-Aug-84 02:33:22 EDT References: <944@cbneb.UUCP> Organization: Varian, Walnut Creek, CA Lines: 23 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.