Solution For Ignorance Of The Law

Some time back I started a thread here about ignorance of the law, that if a person breaks the law and doesn't know better they shouldn't get in trouble. Here is a solution, a person should get in trouble for breaking the law if its a second offense or more of them breaking that same law. Another words, somebody breaks a law they don't know about. They get caught. As it is their first time there will obviously be no record of them breaking it previously and so the courts will see that its their first time breaking the law. Therefore they should not get in trouble. Now, lets say they break that same law again. Now they should get in trouble since now they obviously know they're breaking the law since they broke it before. So how's that for a solution?

DebateChallenge said:

Some time back I started a thread here about ignorance of the law, that if a person breaks the law and doesn't know better they shouldn't get in trouble. Here is a solution, a person should get in trouble for breaking the law if its a second offense or more of them breaking that same law. Another words, somebody breaks a law they don't know about. They get caught. As it is their first time there will obviously be no record of them breaking it previously and so the courts will see that its their first time breaking the law. Therefore they should not get in trouble. Now, lets say they break that same law again. Now they should get in trouble since now they obviously know they're breaking the law since they broke it before. So how's that for a solution?

Click to expand...

It sucks.

First, police and court records aren't always accurate. But the real problem is nobody is a mind reader. So there's no way to know whether the perpetrator really is ignorant of the law or is lying. It therefore is incumbent on someone to know the legality of an action before they take it. Your previous thread whined about a NC man (you?) getting busted for speeding and having a loaded handgun in NJ where his NC carry permit wasn't honored. In that thread, you said there is reciprocity for driver's licenses among states so there's no reason to assume there isn't for gun permits. Course the purposes of cars and guns are different, but that's an argument for another thread. While NJ may honor a NC license, the driver still has to obey NJ traffic laws. Presumably NJ has speed limits posted like every other state in the union, so no excuse for ignorance there. Maybe he honestly didn't know NJ gun law. But if he's going to have a gun, he damn well better be responsible enough to educate himself on where he can legally carry it. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Don't like it? Good luck getting it changed.

CHuDWah said:

It sucks.

First, police and court records aren't always accurate. But the real problem is nobody is a mind reader. So there's no way to know whether the perpetrator really is ignorant of the law or is lying. It therefore is incumbent on someone to know the legality of an action before they take it. Your previous thread whined about a NC man (you?) getting busted for speeding and having a loaded handgun in NJ where his NC carry permit wasn't honored. In that thread, you said there is reciprocity for driver's licenses among states so there's no reason to assume there isn't for gun permits. Course the purposes of cars and guns are different, but that's an argument for another thread. While NJ may honor a NC license, the driver still has to obey NJ traffic laws. Presumably NJ has speed limits posted like every other state in the union, so no excuse for ignorance there. Maybe he honestly didn't know NJ gun law. But if he's going to have a gun, he damn well better be responsible enough to educate himself on where he can legally carry it. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Don't like it? Good luck getting it changed.

Click to expand...

Put it this way, if somebody breaks a law a second time and they were caught the first time, its obvious that the second time they broke the law they knew the law and they knew they were breaking it.

If somebody breaks the law and its their first offense, they could very well be ignorant of it the first time. Laws should be obeyed but sometimes there should be some leeway, within reason. So why not allow some leniency and have a two strikes you're out system in place? Baseball allows three strikes before you're out so why not put such a system in place that is lenient enough to allow two strikes?

And no I was not the fellow from NC who was caught with a loaded handgun in NJ, you can read that story in the "Traveler's Guide to the Firearm Laws of the Fifty States" by J. Scott Kappas

DebateChallenge said:

Some time back I started a thread here about ignorance of the law, that if a person breaks the law and doesn't know better they shouldn't get in trouble. Here is a solution, a person should get in trouble for breaking the law if its a second offense or more of them breaking that same law. Another words, somebody breaks a law they don't know about. They get caught. As it is their first time there will obviously be no record of them breaking it previously and so the courts will see that its their first time breaking the law. Therefore they should not get in trouble. Now, lets say they break that same law again. Now they should get in trouble since now they obviously know they're breaking the law since they broke it before. So how's that for a solution?

Click to expand...

Since you didnt manage, in 12 pages here:

Ignorance Of The Law

to demonstrate or even successfully argue against those that disagreed and supported why ignorance of the law should NOT be an excuse to be charged...this new thread seems a bit presumptuous.

You shouldnt get away with it the first time, for all the reasons people gave you in the prior thread.

Lursa said:

Since you didnt manage, in 12 pages here:

Ignorance Of The Law

to demonstrate or even successfully argue against those that disagreed and supported why ignorance of the law should NOT be an excuse to be charged...this new thread seems a bit presumptuous.

You shouldnt get away with it the first time, for all the reasons people gave you in the prior thread.

Click to expand...

But what if its somebody's first offense?

DebateChallenge said:

But what if its somebody's first offense?

Click to expand...

..

Lursa said:

You shouldnt get away with it the first time, for all the reasons people gave you in the prior thread.

Click to expand...

...

DebateChallenge said:

Put it this way, if somebody breaks a law a second time and they were caught the first time, its obvious that the second time they broke the law they knew the law and they knew they were breaking it.

If somebody breaks the law and its their first offense, they could very well be ignorant of it the first time. Laws should be obeyed but sometimes there should be some leeway, within reason. So why not allow some leniency and have a two strikes you're out system in place? Baseball allows three strikes before you're out so why not put such a system in place that is lenient enough to allow two strikes?

And no I was not the fellow from NC who was caught with a loaded handgun in NJ, you can read that story in the "Traveler's Guide to the Firearm Laws of the Fifty States" by J. Scott Kappas

Click to expand...

It still gets back to there being no way to know whether someone really is ignorant or is lying. And first timers often are shown leniency, albeit not a free pass. That still doesn't absolve them of responsibility to educate themselves. If the NC guy had read Kappas' book, he likely would have been given a speeding ticket, maybe just a warning, and sent on his way.

CHuDWah said:

It still gets back to there being no way to know whether someone really is ignorant or is lying. And first timers often are shown leniency, albeit not a free pass. That still doesn't absolve them of responsibility to educate themselves. If the NC guy had read Kappas' book, he likely would have been given a speeding ticket, maybe just a warning, and sent on his way.

Click to expand...

If its somebody's second or more offense with a particular law its obvious they wouldn't be ignorant of it. To claim ignorance at that point, that is lying.

Lursa said:

..

...

Click to expand...

Baseball allows three strikes, there is no reason the law can't allow two.

DebateChallenge said:

Baseball allows three strikes, there is no reason the law can't allow two.

Click to expand...

Of course there is.

It's not a new concept and it's already been implemented for convictions.

If it would be a more effective incentive for "ignorance", wouldnt they have implemented it?

People here have made it clear that the excuse of "ignorance" isnt in the best interests of society...people can and should be responsible enough to learn the laws they need to function properly and legally in society. This stuff in general is not cryptic.

The more responsibility you remove from people, the less they will ever accept on their own...you want to create a society of people who need a crutch to learn and get a pass. Such people are less valuable as citizens...and the slide further into a nanny state continues.

It's called Deferred Adjudication. It already exists.

Deferred adjudication - Wikipedia.

A deferred adjudication, also known in some jurisdictions as an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (ACOD), probation before judgment (PBJ), or deferred entry of judgment (DEJ), is a form of plea deal available in various jurisdictions, where a defendant pleads "guilty" or "no contest" to criminal charges in exchange for meeting certain requirements laid out by the court within an allotted period of time also ordered by the court. Upon completion of the requirements, which may include probation, treatment, community service, some form of community supervision, or some other diversion program, the defendant may avoid a formal conviction on their record or have their case dismissed.[1][2] In some cases, an order of non-disclosure can be obtained, and sometimes a record can be expunged.

Click to expand...

DebateChallenge said:

Some time back I started a thread here about ignorance of the law, that if a person breaks the law and doesn't know better they shouldn't get in trouble. Here is a solution, a person should get in trouble for breaking the law if its a second offense or more of them breaking that same law. Another words, somebody breaks a law they don't know about. They get caught. As it is their first time there will obviously be no record of them breaking it previously and so the courts will see that its their first time breaking the law. Therefore they should not get in trouble. Now, lets say they break that same law again. Now they should get in trouble since now they obviously know they're breaking the law since they broke it before. So how's that for a solution?

Click to expand...

Way back when I was 16, a guy who was 19 decided I needed my ass kicked, and he proceeded to oblige. I was not seriously injured, no hospitalization required. However, my father took exception to this guy's behavior, called the police and pressed charges.

The 19 year old was not the sharpest knife in the drawer and he showed up in court to plead not guilty to misdemeanor assault - without the benefit of counsel. The court advised him that was a very bad idea. Nevertheless, he insisted on representing himself and the trial began.

The DA called me to the stand and had me describe the details of the assault. When it was the defendant's turn, he began by asking a question that would somehow demonstrate that I deserved to get my ass kicked. He wanted to show that I had done something a few days earlier that pissed him off. The DA objected on the basis of relevancy. The objection was upheld. The defendant then tried rephrasing the question and again the DA objected on the same basis and again it was upheld.

At that point, the judge addressed the defendant, reminding him that he had been warned about proceeding without counsel. The judge told him he was not going to allow that line of questioning and unless he had something else to ask the witness, he was prepared to wrap things up right then and there.

Looking completely deflated, the defendant said "Your honor, I'm from Texas, and back there when two guys have a disagreement, they go out behind the barn and they settle it. They don't get arrested and hauled into court."

"Well," replied the judge. "We're not in Texas, and the people of this state tend to frown upon adults assaulting minors."

The defendant got a six month sentence, which was suspended when my father intervened, asking for leniency, provided the defendant agreed to stay away from his family and home.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, as demonstrated here. However, judges often have discretion in handing out sentences and they can take the totality of circumstances when considering penalties.

DebateChallenge said:

Some time back I started a thread here about ignorance of the law, that if a person breaks the law and doesn't know better they shouldn't get in trouble. Here is a solution, a person should get in trouble for breaking the law if its a second offense or more of them breaking that same law. Another words, somebody breaks a law they don't know about. They get caught. As it is their first time there will obviously be no record of them breaking it previously and so the courts will see that its their first time breaking the law. Therefore they should not get in trouble. Now, lets say they break that same law again. Now they should get in trouble since now they obviously know they're breaking the law since they broke it before. So how's that for a solution?

Click to expand...

Ignorance of the law is only starting to become relevant since we are over-regulated and getting more so. With law stacking on law and even experienced lawyers needing to look into the details reactively. The problem with work arounds such is these is people in general aren't caught unless they do these things a lot and even then it usually missing many of their other wrongs. It hard and expensive to catch people.