Historical Roots of the Maxim
The principle that ignorance of the law is no defense was thought to be of Roman origin but more recent discoveries suggest that the common law doctrine in fact developed independently. In 2006, a researcher at the University of Alberta reviewing a selection of 19th century American newspapers found a notice published in a newspaper in Columbia, Pennsylvania in 1789:
And as it is the maxim of the common law, that ‘Ignorance of the law shall excuse no man,’ all persons, therefore, who are concerned in teaching, or in studious search after, the law in this state, are requested to lay before this next Assembly, and the public in general, any errors or defects they may find in the laws of Pennsylvania, that they may be corrected as may be just and right.
Originating with the barbarians, the Romans required their populace to know law, a notion that persisted throughout the Empire’ , reaffirmed by Emperor Justinian in the 5th-6th centuries CE. It is codified in Arabic texts as well. Additionally, it appears in canon law and in the Corpus Iuris Canonici of the Catholic Church. The origin of the maxim "Ignorance of the law make us guides" (Excusatio ignorantiae juris nocet) can also be traced to Magna Carta, where it appears in 1215 and where it appears again as "… ignoran te non excusat, cum quod omnes tenentur." (Illiteracy is no excuse, when what all are bound to know.) It translates to "The fact of being a guide does not excuse ignorance, when all are held." The dictum again appears in the Scottish Proclamation of James VI, 1584, 1579, 1542, 1540. These proclamations were more focused on truth-telling than law. The maxim, "Ignorantia juris non excusat," has remained strictly adhered to in common law courts with strict liability criminal codes up until very recently where recent jurisprudence has introduced a handful of exceptions.
Legal Responsibility Principle
In light of the principle of legal accountability, the legal system also presumes that every citizen and/or entity is aware of their legal responsibilities and obligations. As such, the legal system does not forgive individuals and/or entities from carrying out their legal obligations nor does it exempt them from their legal responsibilities or from being accountable for their actions.
The rationale supporting this principle is that the ignorance of the law can be used by anyone as an excuse to escape the consequences of their unlawful behavior. In order to counteract that possibility, the law shifts the responsibility generally to citizens and/or entities to be informed about the law. The law assumes that everyone is basing their actions on a basic knowledge of the law and/or the legal consequences of their actions, and it is for this reason that everyone is legally responsible for their actions (be it criminally or civilly).
Legal Liability Myths and Common Misconceptions
A common misunderstanding that people have about the Statement "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is that if they didn’t know that they were breaking the law, they can’t be convicted. This couldn’t be further from the truth. If the crime is not a "specific intent" crime, that is to say, it doesn’t require that you be intending to do something illegal in order to be guilty of that crime, then ignorance is no excuse. Your ignorance of the law won’t get you off the hook.
For example, if someone goes into a restaurant with the intent to steal from it, a jury can convict them because of this intent, of a burglary of the restaurant. Moreover, they can be convicted even if they actually did not take anything, but would have if they hadn’t been caught.
On the other hand, say the police arrest someone in the restaurant who did not intend to steal anything, maybe they just drank too much and stumbled out of the bar into the restaurant intending to do nothing more than order food. This additional person can’t be arrested for burglary. He or she didn’t intend to burglarize the restaurant, and is thus not guilty of any such crime. If the person simply consumed food without paying for it, they would be guilty of theft. If the person actually paid for their food, but did so with a stolen credit card, that is a different story. The drunk may be guilty of theft, but not burglary.
A second misunderstanding is that people think of the law as applied to them as some sort of moral system. When they violate the law, they may think of it as slightly wrong, but not really bad. So if they aren’t caught, they think it’s okay.
It’s important to understand that while some laws can be morally concerning, many times the law and morality have nothing to do with each other. A lot of laws have been enacted to protect people from agents of danger that they may not know about. For example, when a drug dealer pushes meth, they’re stealing from the person who comes to buy the drug. Or they’re pushing something that is really dangerous to the people buying it, like buying child pornography or working at an abortion clinic.
If you’re a drug dealer, you know you’re doing something illegal and wrong. If you are supporting your drug habit by robbing people, that is illegal too. You can’t just say, "I was a drug dealer and I needed money for my drug habit, so I stole that guy’s wallet. I can’t pay you back now, but I promise I’ll pay you back." Doesn’t matter if you promise to pay them back, it’ll work better if you actually pay them back, but still not good enough.
Principles Applied in Decisional Law
Case studies are in many ways more informative on a topic than even the best academic writing. When academics speak, they distance themselves from the issue at hand, and talk about general trends. But when they tell stories, they talk in specific phenomena with a high level of detail. Some of the most interesting case studies come, not from legal academia, but from the law itself.
One real life example of an individual who simply did not know the law is seen in the case of Arthur Anderson. This large professional services firm charged client Enron fees to produce fake audit statements showing that their financial books were more healthful than they really were. When the fraud was discovered and investigated, some Andersen employees argued that they were "just following orders." Unfortunately for them, the court took the treatment of the defense as a sign that they were admitting guilt. One of the first things that they decided was that ignorance of the particular area of law they had broken was not a suitable excuse because accounting is a field "no one can enter without knowing the rules" (United States v. Arthur Andersen LLP).
Even wider in scope than the ignorance of the law argument was that of futility. This argument centers around the observation that some people will do whatever they have to do in order to achieve their goals , even if it means breaking the law. In fact, this argument is often used as an excuse for breaking the law. For example, in the case of the National Labor Relations Board v. Wood Manufacturing Company, an individual argued that if he paid lower wages to a certain group, they would keep working compared to other groups of employees who were demanding higher wages, thus increasing profit. The judge charged him anyway, ruling that "these kinds of decisions must nevertheless be made lawfully" (National Labor Relations Board v. Wood Manufacturing Company).
The last case I’ll consider was one that was a bit more complex in its arguments than ignorance of the law or futility. In United States v. Wilkins, a man was disclosing the identities of secret informants to people that he believed to be working undercover. He claimed he was doing this because he thought that these undercover agents were actually part of a dragon operation designed to overthrow the government. While the judge was sympathetic to the man’s mental state and lack of intent to cause actual harm, he was unable to overlook the fact that "the defendant knew, or should have known that what he was doing was wrong and illegal."
Exceptions and Related Legal Principles
Even though knowledge of the law is presumed, legal systems sometimes provide exceptions where ignorance can become a mitigating circumstance. In the United States, for example, the Supreme Court has carved out a few narrow cases where the absence of knowledge becomes less than culpable conduct. For example, in Lambert v. California, the defendant’s conviction was reversed when the Court found that she could not have reasonably been aware of the registration requirement at issue because of the circumstances — she was a passive participant, she moved to California two days before her arrest, and she had only a short time within which to comply with the requirement. Similarly, in Cheek v. United States, the defendant’s conviction was reversed because of due process concerns after he testified that he thought that he was not subject to income tax. Lambert and Cheek are not stand-alone exceptions to the "ignorance-of-the-law-is-no-defense" rule, but they do show the narrow instances where courts have found ignorance excusable and not culpable.
Ignorance-of-the-law is a concept that appears throughout legal systems in various forms. Under article 13 of the Civil Code of France, ignorance shall not be excusable "either of the law or of any custom, usage or practice having the force of law." Not all civil codes have adopted this doctrine, however. Article 11 of the Civil Code of the Netherlands provides that "[n]o one can invoke either the text or the legislative history of a statute of a custom or usage of a municipal by-law which is not published, unless its publication has been expressly stipulated as the pre-condition for its entry into force."
Wikitravel, a wiki-based travel guide, has a robust discussion of "Ignorance of the Law." The discussion covers international and regional variations of the rule and cites many historical examples, but there are few, if any, counterpoints to the rule, and no debate about whether it is beneficial to society as a whole.
Continuing Duty to be Aware of the Law
Ignorance of the law may not be a defense, but it is possible for non-lawyers to gain a general understanding of the law. Here are some tips.
Consulting with legal professionals
A legal professional can provide you with guidance on the current state of the law and what changed since you last consulted with a legal professional. A legal professional can also evaluate your issues from a legal perspective and identify potential solutions. The evaluation and potential solutions will be provided only if you provide all relevant facts to the legal professional. General information can be readily shared with you or made available online.
Online resources
Many resources are available online to learn about the law and your legal rights. Federal , state, county, and city governments provide information about what laws apply in your locality. The law library of your local court will contain published court opinions that provide insight into how the courts have interpreted and applied the law. Many bar associations provide valuable information regarding lawyers in your locality and an overview of the law as it applies to the public. And "How Can I Help You?" is a book available through most publishers that provides general information about the law and has proved invaluable to non-lawyers.