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.