Ignorance as an Excuse in the Contemporary Justice System
Ignorantia juris non excusat (Ignorance of the law excuses not) is a legal maxim that asserts that not knowing a law does not excuse one from breaking it. However, as our society has grown in complexity, so has our legal system. As our legal code continues to be abstruse and unequal in its practical application, we must examine ignorance as a symptom of the larger issues in our criminal system, rather than a wrong of the individual. While our legal system prides itself on not excusing ignorance of the law, it has proven to be unevenly applied and demands reexamination of its application in our modern legal system.
Ignorance of the law should be an excuse due to the sheer scope and number of laws. Due to the large number of laws a given American is required to know, the average American likely commits 3 felonies a day unknowingly. Some of these obscure felonies, such as using store wi-fi networks outside the store, can have weight and be enforced . In the case of using store wi-fi, a man in Michigan had to pay a $400 fine and complete community service after using a store’s wi-fi from his car. Many local, state, and federal laws in the status quo tend to criminalize normal behavior that does not have a huge detriment to people or society. This means that virtually everyone who truly attempts to be a law abiding citizen still commits crimes. The problem with ignorantia juris is that people could still be held liable for obscure laws that they break without knowledge of their existence. However, law enforcement officers are given discretion on what to enforce, as it would be impossible to hold everyone liable. This discretion completely contradicts the purpose of law—to justify the rights and responsibilities each citizen has in a clear manner to avoid destruction of liberties by the state. This criminalization of innocent-in-nature acts has led to the police disproportionately targeting people of color and low-income people for acts they committed in good faith. Between 2011 and 2013 in Ferguson, MO, black people received 95 percent of jaywalking tickets and and black offenders who received speeding tickets based on the officer's word alone, rather than by speed cameras or guns, grew significantly". In addition, a 2015 ACLU study of several cities in New Jersey found that black people were 2.6 to 9.6 times more likely to be arrested than white people for low-level offenses. If ignorance could be used as an excuse against obscure laws that criminalize commonplace behavior, this would restrict abusive behavior by law enforcement and ensure that only people who purposely or negligently broke the law were held liable.
There are two main arguments for justifying the punishment of ignorance; The first is that it would incentivize citizens to try and be as educated as possible about the law to prevent breaking it. In reality, ignorantia juris discourages one from learning about the law, because under the ignorantia juris standard, even if someone educates themselves on the law, the court can just dismiss the person’s conclusions. Since laws can be extremely difficult to understand, someone can make a reasonable effort to educate themselves, but not reach the same interpretation as the courts. For example, in the case of People v. Marrero, a security guard reasonably believed he was able to carry a handgun, as the law states handguns may be carried by "correction officers of any state correctional facility or of any penal correctional institution." Marrero took the handgun law to mean any federal correctional institution but was still convicted of breaking the law. When someone is held liable for their mistakes, it doesn’t matter whether they did research or not, which diminishes the value of conducting such legal education. However, if ignorance can be an excuse in certain situations, this makes learning the law an insurance even if they made a reasonable mistake.
The second justification for the maxim is that many would claim ignorance, even if they were aware of the law. However, it should be proven that there was true ignorance of the crime for it to be an excuse. For example, if someone claimed ignorance to a drug offense and they were concealing the drugs in some manner, it could be proven that they knew it was wrong if they felt the need to hide them. 70% of American adults have committed a crime that could lead to imprisonment, and the number of people who break laws by accident surely outweigh the number who knowingly do and would lie about ignorance. The justification to punish innocent minded people in order to ensure a few guilty people cannot use the excuse of ignorance completely contradicts the doctrine of prioritizing protecting the innocent over punishing the guilty that is enshrined in our legal system.
Ignorance as an excuse should be applicable in situations where the accused broke a law and/or committed an action that could not be considered intrinsically wrong or made a reasonable effort to read up on the law. This would ensure that people would be motivated to educate themselves on the law as an insurance, which would foster transparency in our legal system. The justifications for ignorantia juris relies on a completely transparent legal system with clear and objective laws grounded in morality. As our justice system has departed from a moral-based law system, it is time we depart from a blanket ignorantia juris doctrine.