Write a reaction paper on this statement: Ignorance of the Law excuses no one.

Many of our go-to quips about justice are pure pragmatism, however we try to rotate idealistic arrays into position to shore them up. “Ignorance of the law is no excuse for non-compliance” is one of these.

That, by the way, is how I’ve always heard the phrase. Dear old dad. He always stated it as a decided fact. It is one. I prefer dad’s formulation (which I’ve also heard from others of a practiced knack for precision) to “Ignorance of the law excuses no one.” What, from anything? Why so broad? What can we possibly be talking about?

What does the law excuse anyone from? Only the consequences of the law. When are such consequences incurred?

Only upon noncompliance with the law. Only upon proven noncompliance with the law. So really only in a court of law, or in the discretion of those agents and officers tasked with deciding which cases are sustainable in such courts.

Anonymous0108id Anonymous0108id · Answer 2

Answer:

Law is all pervading. Almost all your actions are regulated by law except a few. We have all sorts of law like personal, family, civil, criminal, revenue, commercial, taxation, public and private international law and so on. Law can be statutory, customary, moral or ethical, ecclesiastical, etc. But it is well known that ignorance of any of these laws cannot constitute an excuse.

You are not permitted to plead ignorance as a defense to escape the rigors of law. If it is so, it is very easy for any person can put forward ignorance as a defense though you were aware of the law and its consequences.

The law enforcement machinery shall come to a grinding halt if ignorance is accepted as a defense. Being a negative fact, court cannot insist on proof also. It requires the study of the mental position of the law breaker which is a real difficult exercise. For all these reasons the policy of law has always been to reject the plea of ignorance of law. Lord Ellenborough said “there is no saying to what extent the excuse of ignorance might not be carried, it would be urged in almost every case.” Thus, the above discussion explains the philosophy or rationale behind the Latin maxim “Ignorantia legis neminem excusat” which means that ignorance of law shall not excuse a person.

Explanation:

People and sometimes even legal experts express the maxim in a different way by stating that “every person is presumed to be aware of law” as if both are same and carry the same effects or produce same consequences. They assert or believe that “Every person is presumed to know the law or ought to have known the law” is a statement which emerges from the statement “ignorance of law is no excuse”. There is a real difference between the two statements. This article examines both the statements and makes an attempt to establish that both do not produce the same result or impact.