Ignorantia juris non excusat

[Banana Jelly]

Do you believe this is applied to every ignorance case? What about the law's that change without your knowledge, and still break it? Or what if you mis-interpret law's? Do you think those argument's are with merit on the court, without a jury trial? (Juries tend to be sympathetic and times, and non sympathetic, which depend's on cases, so there never a trust able thing) I believe most ignorance in law, is from mis-interpreting law's to mean something (Not on purpose, but rather by mistake)

This is of-course if the defendant's argument is reasonable, and true. Justice is never 100% right, but beyond a reasonable sense that the defendant made a mistake in ignorance, would it still work?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I don't know if this is for this forum section or Political Academy, but change can happen at any time.

[Thanatos]

It depends on the law, of course. Certain things will be obvious, while some strange obscure pointless law on the books that nobody knows about except lawyers will probably give the defendant a bit more leeway.

[vecordia]

Yes.
This sentence is true enough to be followed if you choose the law to be primal code for the social living.
No excuses from that. If you aren't sure which action could be discordant to law - educate yourself or don't make any moves.

Although law isn't and never will be perfect cause perfection doesn't need any laws. It's mainly ethical problem. There's lot better to live in a harmony without any law in the first place, meeting yourself humanity deeper eye-to-eye. These instructions concern less the particular kinds of the law for example commercial, economic, agricultural etc.

[Banana Jelly]

Yes.
This sentence is true enough to be followed if you choose the law to be primal code for the social living.
No excuses from that. If you aren't sure which action could be discordant to law - educate yourself or don't make any moves.

Although law isn't and never will be perfect cause perfection doesn't need any laws. It's mainly ethical problem. There's lot better to live in a harmony without any law in the first place, meeting yourself humanity deeper eye-to-eye. These instructions concern less the particular kinds of the law for example commercial, economic, agricultural etc.

What about mis-interpreting laws? What about the people who do read the law before they decide to execute there action's? They think it's legal, but the law actually say's it's illegal? Sometimes you could be the dumbest person in the world, and still understand the law, while you can also be the most intelligent person, but still mis-interpret law's. Ofcourse, im not talking about murdering or rape cases, as there just from instinct, wrong. But just the other's.

[vecordia]

What about mis-interpreting laws?

If they misinterpreting it don't blame law for that

What about the people who do read the law before they decide to execute there action's? They think it's legal, but the law actually say's it's illegal? Sometimes you could be the dumbest person in the world, and still understand the law, while you can also be the most intelligent person, but still mis-interpret law's. Ofcourse, im not talking about murdering or rape cases, as there just from instinct, wrong. But just the other's.

E d u c a t i o n

I know there will be differences always, nobody's perfect
The point is - if you implemented law through society it must be seriously treated.

[Banana Jelly]

If they misinterpreting it don't blame law for that


E d u c a t i o n

I know there will be differences always, nobody's perfect
The point is - if you implemented law through society it must be seriously treated.

So you say more lenient sentences for those who mis-interpret law's, when they wouldn't if they first knew it, and severe sentencing if they do know it?