Talk:Ignorantia juris non excusat

untitled

Is this universally applied to every last case, or is leniency granted in cases where the law is tremendously obscure and altogether unobvious (such as Bernards Township, New Jersey's ban on public frowning, or Southington, Connecticut's ban on Silly String?)- 69.249.92.211 04:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Completely Void of Any Verifiable Citations

This article is completely void of any verifiable citations. I believe it is fundamentally incorrect. I've been told that the origin of the quote is in one of common law, not legislation. In common law, one is dealt with for harming a victim. One generally knows or can be reasoned with to recognize that one has victimized another, hence, ignorance is no excuse. This fanciful version of the reasoning behind the quotation thus has no verifiable source at all, and this article should be tagged as so much nonsense.206.124.31.201 (talk) 06:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Oddly enough, this article does indeed reference the real reason and origin of the term, but papers over it and extends it with legalize that is not backed by any citations. This shouldn't be a surprise, because it was probably written by an attorney--an "officer of the court"--a cog in the system that abuses that exact premise. In short, once again, citations are missing, and I believe, for suspicious reasons. 206.124.31.201 (talk) 06:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, outside the context of common law, and particularly the case in which one is victimized (the obvious exception is, hence, victimless crimes) it is demonstrably absurd that anyone could, in fact, know all the legislation. There is no one on earth who knows all the legislation which applies to him. I challenge anyone to try. Thus, the law in this case is arbitrary and invalid, and not dissimilar to a system designed to brainwash or drive one insane. The very utterance of the nonsensical statement (the subject of the article) in the context of "modern legislation" is the argument that this is true. It is no excuse that you don't know you are a criminal, thus you are either insane or a criminal, and therefore, off to the cage you go.206.124.31.201 (talk) 06:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Just one more thing...the very idea of applying the latin, from its context of law, to the modern context of draconian legislation is just one step short of outright fraud--something the state regularly commits under cover of "legislation" and "jurisprudence." It is outright anachronistic. 206.124.31.201 (talk) 07:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

For a more eloquent explanation of the unjust legal game the state plays, see section II, subsection A of Over-Criminalization of Conduct/Over-Federalization of Criminal Law 206.124.31.201 (talk) 07:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Just saying...

Ignorance of the law should be an excuse depending on the situation. But everyone knows it's wrong to kill. --68.173.113.106 (talk) 00:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Violent crimes are pretty much all instinctively understood as wrong (barring serious and dangerous mental illness), so it seems like we should probably give at least one free pass to nonviolent offenders (and then document that they've been warned). 104.246.96.133 (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

legal awareness

You are well come to contribute and improve article legal awareness.

Mahitgar (talk) 12:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

A question

This page says that countries under European law have the principle nemo censetur ignorare legem ("nobody is thought to be ignorant of the law"), but I came across this; "Nul n'est sensé ignorer la loi" (as a principle of French policing) in a French article, which seems to translate as “No-one is supposed to know the law”.
Is this just a poor translation, or is the situation reversed in France? Moonraker12 (talk) 13:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Ignorantia juris semper nocet

I believe that in Scandinavia, this is often written as ignorantia juris (semper) nocet, rather than one of the four expressions currently on the page. --167.114.68.144 (talk) 09:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Canadian law exception?

Is this a precedent or was the law already like this in Canada? : <http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41699245>

Quoting this from the article: "A Canadian man was found not guilty of rape because he believed he could have sex with his wife whenever he wanted.

Ontario Superior Court Justice Robert Smith ruled the prosecution failed to prove the accused man knew his behaviour was criminal."

I'm putting this here in case this is significant enough to edit the article or not. Xanikk999 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

My thoughts

Can anyone add a citation for (Bailey (1800) Russ & Ry 1) ? Every Internet link I can find merely references it.GeoffAvogadro (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

The harrowing examples of children being brought up in complete isolation ( sometimes by their parents ), are cases where people could have no knowledge of any law. It would surely be unfair to punish them, or even as Bailey (1800), to be found guilty then immediately pardoned, as an unverified source suggested happened.GeoffAvogadro (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)