Ignorance of the law
"Ignorance of the law" refers to the legal principle that individuals cannot excuse their unlawful actions by claiming they were unaware of the law. This principle, rooted in Roman law and incorporated into Anglo-American common law, is encapsulated in the maxim "ignorance of the law excuses not." The rationale behind this rule is to encourage individuals to familiarize themselves with legal statutes. In modern legal contexts, however, the application of this doctrine has evolved, especially concerning complex regulations that may not involve inherently wrongful acts. While ignorance may not excuse individuals from criminal conduct, there are exceptions; for instance, if a statute requires knowledge of the law as an element of the offense, or if a person relied on misleading guidance from a public official. This principle underscores the importance of legal awareness in a society where many actions are designated as illegal solely by legislative definition, rather than by their moral implications. As a result, individuals remain accountable for their actions, regardless of their knowledge of the law, emphasizing the need for diligence in understanding legal obligations.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Ignorance of the law
SIGNIFICANCE: Ignorance of the law by a person committing an offense is not an excuse for committing the offense.
The maxim that “ignorance of the law excuses not” was a principle from Roman law assimilated into the common law. The Anglo-American common law restates this ancient maxim as “ignorance of the law is no excuse” or “everyone is presumed to know the law.” The common-law justification of the rule was to encourage citizens to learn the law. Failure to comprehend the legal effect of making an admission provides no excuse for a defendant. As one court put it, “Ignorance of the law excuses no one.” The modern trend of the law is a steady erosion of the ignorance of the law doctrine.
The common-law position was based on the fact that most common-law crimes were malum in se, or inherently evil. The “ignorance of the law” maxim is less compelling for complex statutes that criminalize conduct that is not inherently evil. Many activities in the modern regulatory state are wrong simply because a legislature defines them as wrong. Regulatory offenses are often referred to as malum prohibitum, or public welfare crimes. The “ignorance of the law” defense has a continuing vitality for many public welfare offenses. Nevertheless, persons may be prosecuted for violation of a water pollution statute, for example, even if they profess to having been ignorant that the activity is illegal.
Criminal defendants may be prosecuted for receiving stolen goods even if they did not know that such receipt is illegal. The fact that the U.S. Congress used the adverb “knowingly” to authorize punishment of those not having a permit for firearms does not lead to the conclusion that there is an exception to the ignorance of the law defense. Similarly, ignorance is no defense in other substantive fields of the law. Employers are not excused for failing to maintain a safe workplace simply because they were unaware of occupational safety laws. Ignorance of the law does not excuse public officials from requirements imposed upon them by sunshine laws or open government laws.
The ignorance of the law doctrine is inapplicable to offenses that are defined with a state-of-mind requirement. However, the U.S. Congress or a state may define knowledge of the law as an element of an offense. In such statutes, a willful violation requires some mental state more culpable than mere intent to perform a forbidden act. Courts often rule that the word “willfully” requires knowledge of the law, which is an exception to the presumed knowledge principle. Likewise, mistake of fact or the law may be an excuse or defense if it negates the mental state that is the element of a crime.
The willfulness required for criminal contempt is the knowledge that one is violating a court order, not the knowledge that the violation of the order is a crime. A mistake of fact is a misapprehension of a fact that, if true, would have justified the act or omission. Mistake of law or ignorance of the law is a defense to a crime when a defendant’s willfulness or knowledge is an element of the defense. Another exception to the no-excuse doctrine occurs when a defendant has relied on an interpretation of law given by a public official. Courts are more receptive to the “mistake of law” defense if the statute is complex or ambiguously worded. If there is a complex business, environmental, or other complex statute, courts sometimes permit ignorance of the law to excuse a violation. The policy justification for this exception to the general rule is the danger of convicting individuals involved in apparently innocent activity.
Bibliography
Abramson, Leslie, with Richard Flaste. The Defense Is Ready: Life in the Trenches of Criminal Law. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997.
Acker, J. R., and D. C. Brody. Criminal Procedure: A Contemporary Perspective. 2d ed. Sudbury, Mass.: Jones and Bartlett, 2004.
"Ignorance of the Law is No Excuse: What Does “Ignorantia Juris non Excusat” Mean in Legal Terms?" Legal Fix, 3 Dec. 2023, www.legalfix.com/articles/ignorance-of-the-law-is-no-excuse. Accessed 5 July 2024.
Ingram, Jefferson L. Criminal Procedure: Theory and Practice. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 2005.
Strigberger, Marcel. "Is Ignorance Bliss for Laypeople in the Legal System." ABA Journal, 20 July 2023, www.abajournal.com/columns/article/is-ignorance-bliss-for-laypeople-in-the-legal-system. Accessed 5 July 2024.