But after considering other justifications of the doctrine, this argument of ignorantia legis seems the most plausible. Holmes` objection to this reasoning is based on a false factual predicate. Ignorance of the law may be punished only if it results in a violation of the law; This coincidence, and not mere ignorance, is punished to the same extent as knowingly and intentionally breaking the law. In any event, if ignorance of the law does not excuse because it is guilty, the judge or jury should consider whether the particular ignorance alleged by a defendant is actually guilty. But even from these beginnings, the application of the maxim was subject to important, albeit limited, exceptions where the law was indeed ambiguous and recognizable. Despite the widespread acceptance of the maxim, Roman law allowed certain groups of people to invoke ignorance of the law as a defense. The very young, for example, were considered incapable of understanding important aspects of the law and were therefore allowed to excuse their deviant behaviour by pretending not to know the requirements or limitations of the law. The inability of U.S. lawyers and commentators to agree on a single justification for the maxim has not ruled out its application in the U.S., but it may help explain the increasing number of cases that have deviated from the maxim over time. Despite the plethora of reasoning used to support the application of the maxim in the United States, the courts have also departed from the maxim, just as their ancestors did when evidence of good faith ignorance or error made a criminal conviction unfathomable (to them), or the law itself required forgiveness of a defendant`s error of law. What I hear from the people I represent are variations of, “I didn`t know this – or that – was illegal. This idea is also understandable and leads to frustration on both sides of the law.

Admittedly, a professional who is aware of the existence of a law on his profession could be considered sufficiently informed to know its meaning and, if that meaning is not clear, to regulate his actions in order to avoid possible illegality. If the defendant alleging an error of law knows of the existence and fundamental importance of the law, but allegedly believes that his conduct did not violate the law, the doctrine of ignorance legis could not be used to convict him, nor would limiting that doctrine relieve him of liability. Unless his faith denies a requisite intent, the accused will be held responsible for his act; If he or she acted voluntarily with knowledge of the law and is determined to violate the law, the defendant`s intention to break the law could be inferred. Hall`s argument that apologizing for an error of law would destroy the legal system therefore does not support ignorance legis. However, the Roman postponement has only reached so far. Although these different groups of Roman citizens were considered incapable of knowing ius civile (the body of civil law that governed Roman relations), they were supposed to know and obey the us gentium (the system of laws that had been established among all people everywhere). As the legal commentator John Austin generously put it much later, because these people did not fall into the state of “general imbecility,” they could be expected to know ius gentium, which was based on principles of presumptuous natural reason understood by all. However, the Court of Appeal found that Miller`s failure to inform it that his conduct was unlawful constituted a breach of due process under Lambert v.

California, 355 U.S. 225 (1957). Lambert is a landmark case on the fair termination requirement under the due process clause. The Lambert court overturned an order requiring offenders to register with the Los Angeles Police Department within five days of arriving in Los Angeles. As there was no evidence that the defendant was aware of the registration requirement, the conviction could not be upheld, as due process required that the defendant be aware of the offence in question. In Lambert, this requirement of timely notification was expressly recognized as an exception to the general rule that ignorance of the law is not a defence. Quoting Lambert, the Miller Court of Appeal concluded: “The lack of notice to Miller that he was facing severe criminal penalties for an act that is legal to most people, most convicted criminals, and even Miller himself a few weeks earlier, renders the new subsection unconstitutional as it applies to him.” State v. Miller, ___ N.C. App.

___, 783 p.E.2d 512 (2016). The second important justification for the ignorance legis, advanced in the Blackstone Connnentaries and defended most vigorously by Holmes, is that adherence to the maxim deters crime. If ignorance was excused, Blackstone argued that the law could be “circumvented with impunity” or, as Holmes put it, allowing a defense of ignorance would encourage ignorance of laws. However, the application of ignorance legis cannot deter individuals from reoffending and can only indirectly contribute to deterring others. Holmes used robbery and murder as examples of crimes that should be discouraged for the benefit of the entire community; The community, he argued, must sacrifice the individual to the public goal of avoiding murder and robbery by punishing both the ignorant and the conscious and premeditated transgressors, so that everyone knows that these acts are illegal. Finally, Professor Henry M. Hart postulated that the “essential reasoning” of the “very misunderstood” maxim is that any member of the community who engages in illegal and prohibited acts “without knowing that they are criminals, is guilty of both his lack of knowledge and his actual behavior.” Minnesota, the Supreme Court rejected this analogy, stating that “the innocence of an act that violates applicable law cannot be affirmed, and ignorance of the law will not excuse. The controversial law [punishment for occasional and involuntary entry into state land] has no retroactive element or effect. The legal principle of ignorance juris non excusat (ignorance of the law does not excuse) or ignorantia legis neminem excusat (ignorance of the law excuses no one) derives from Roman law.