Cameron Miranda
There are many reasons why people may not be able to follow the law. Some laws are simply impossible to follow, either because they are unknowable or technically unfeasible. For example, a child born in France to US citizen parents is legally required by US law to report all bank accounts to the US government—a law that is impossible to know about unless specifically sought out. Other laws are so strict that they are technically impossible to follow, such as those regarding nuclear power stations in the former Soviet Union. In other cases, people may be incapable of following the law due to personal limitations, such as disabilities or mathematical illiteracy. While some people follow laws out of a sense of moral duty or to avoid negative consequences, others may be incapable of dealing with the repercussions of their actions and choose to break the law regardless.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Reason for following the law | People follow laws because they are afraid of the consequences |
| Unaware of the law | Many laws are impossible to follow because they are impossible to know about |
| Impractical laws | Laws may be too complex or impractical to follow |
| Unconstitutional laws | Impossible laws that are unconstitutional will fall apart in court |
| Technical impossibility | Laws may be technically impossible to follow due to factors beyond an individual's control |
Explore related products
![Law of Governance, Risk Management and Compliance: [Connected Ebook] (Aspen Casebook)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/616gNHR5shL._AC_UL320_.jpg)
What You'll Learn
- Laws may be unknown to the public, making them impossible to follow
- Laws may be technically impossible to follow
- Laws may be unconstitutional, and therefore unable to stand in court
- People may be physically capable of following the law, but not capable of following the spirit of the law
- People may follow laws not because they agree with them, but because they want to avoid consequences
Laws may be unknown to the public, making them impossible to follow
The idea that ignorance of the law is not an excuse is a well-established principle in jurisprudence. This principle, ignorantia juris non excusat, is derived from Roman law and was first mentioned in the Bible in Leviticus 5:17. It states that a person is bound by a law even if they are unaware of its existence.
However, this principle assumes that the law in question has been properly promulgated, meaning it has been published and distributed to the public through official channels. While it is impossible for anyone to be aware of every law in operation, the public should, in theory, be able to access and understand the laws that apply to them. This is an essential aspect of the rule of law, which requires an open and transparent system of law-making and the fair application of laws.
In reality, laws may be unknown to the public due to their complexity or because they are impractical to follow. For example, in the United States, a child born to US citizen parents in France is required by law to report all their bank accounts to the US government, a law that is unlikely to be known by those it affects. Similarly, technical standards in the former Soviet Union regarding nuclear power stations were reportedly impossible to adhere to due to the state of the art at the time.
The existence of laws that are unknown or impossible to follow can erode public respect for the rule of law. While ignorance of the law is generally not a valid defence, there are cases where it has been considered, especially when laws are unclear or when individuals have sought advice from official sources. For instance, in Canada, a person was charged with possessing gambling devices, which they had been advised by customs officials were legal to import. Although convicted, the sentence was an absolute discharge, taking into account the defendant's ignorance of the law.
Special Master: Can They Control a Law Firm?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Laws may be technically impossible to follow
It is possible for laws to be technically impossible to follow. Many US laws are impossible to follow because they are obscure or unknown. For example, a child born in France to US citizen parents is legally required by US law to report all bank accounts to the US government, despite possibly never having left France, studied US law, or had access to an American accountant. This law could result in massive fines and jail time for non-compliance.
In some cases, laws may be impossible to follow due to conflicting requirements. For instance, during New York's COVID vaccination campaign, Governor Cuomo issued rules stating that vaccinators would be fined if they vaccinated someone who was not eligible and also fined if they did not use up their vaccine doses. This created a situation where vaccinators were forced to choose between two impossible options.
Laws may also be technically impossible to follow due to impracticality or ambiguity. For example, a law that prohibits talking or whispering within 200 feet of a church creates a practical difficulty for people who need to communicate while passing by. Additionally, laws with vague or ambiguous language can make compliance challenging, as individuals may not fully understand their obligations or how to fulfill them.
Furthermore, laws that are too strict can become technically impossible to follow. In the former Soviet Union, technical norms regarding nuclear power stations were so stringent that they were impossible to meet, even with safe operation. This created a situation where the standards were unrealistic and unattainable, potentially leading to non-compliance or workarounds.
While some argue that impossible-to-follow laws are unnecessary and unconstitutional, others suggest that they may serve a purpose. In totalitarian regimes, for instance, vague and ambiguous laws can be used to instill fear and compliance in citizens, making it easy to detain or convict them of default offenses.
FBI Agents: Enforcing State Laws?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Laws may be unconstitutional, and therefore unable to stand in court
Laws that are impossible to follow can be passed, and there is nothing inherently wrong with this. However, the question of constitutionality arises in such cases. If an impossible-to-follow law is unconstitutional, it will not stand in court.
In the United States, there are several examples of laws that have been deemed unconstitutional and, therefore, unable to stand in court. For instance, in the case of City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was deemed to be "so far out of proportion to a supposed remedial or preventive object that it cannot be understood as responsive to, or designed to prevent, unconstitutional behavior."
In another instance, the provision of the Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act, which created a presumption that the possessor of marijuana was aware of its illegal importation, was held to be unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. This was because it could not be proven that all marijuana in the United States was of foreign origin, and thus, users could not know if their marijuana was of foreign origin.
State laws can also be deemed unconstitutional. For example, a Kentucky law that prohibited the sale of liquor to an inebriated person was found to violate the Commerce Clause when applied to a carrier delivering liquor from another state.
Furthermore, technical norms regarding nuclear power stations in the former Soviet Union were so strict that they were technically impossible to follow given the state of technology at the time.
In conclusion, while laws that are impossible to follow can be passed, their constitutionality is crucial. If they are found to be unconstitutional, they will not stand in court and may be struck down or modified to align with constitutional requirements.
Military Intervention: Can They Enforce Domestic Law?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
People may be physically capable of following the law, but not capable of following the spirit of the law
The "letter of the law" and the "spirit of the law" are two distinct ways to interpret rules and laws. Following the letter of the law involves adhering to the literal interpretation of the law's wording. In contrast, following the spirit of the law means acting in accordance with the intention behind the law's enforcement. While people may be physically capable of following the letter of the law, they may struggle to align their actions with the spirit of the law due to various factors.
For instance, in the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37), Jesus engages in a dialogue with a lawyer who attempts to test him by asking, "Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus responds by asking the lawyer about his understanding of the law, to which the lawyer quotes Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18. The lawyer then asks the question, "Who is my neighbor?" with the goal of self-justification. In this case, the lawyer is focused on the letter of the law, while Jesus emphasizes the spirit of the law, which is to love one's neighbor as oneself.
Another example is found in Shakespeare's play, "The Merchant of Venice", where the moneylender Shylock agrees with Antonio that he can take a pound of flesh from him if he defaults on a loan. When Antonio fails to repay the loan, Shylock refuses to show mercy and insists on taking his pound of flesh. Portia, however, saves Antonio by pointing out that Shylock's agreement did not mention blood, and therefore, he can only take the pound of flesh without shedding any blood. Here, Shakespeare highlights the importance of upholding the spirit of the law over mere technicalities.
In legal contexts, the spirit of the law is often considered when judging an individual's culpability. For instance, in the case of Jack Kevorkian, who was repeatedly acquitted despite violating assisted-suicide laws, jurors perceived that the intention of these laws was to prevent assisting physically healthy individuals in suicide. Thus, they found Kevorkian not guilty, as he had assisted terminally ill individuals. This example demonstrates how the spirit of the law can influence judgments of culpability, even when the letter of the law has been violated.
Additionally, people's motivation to comply with the law can be influenced by their intrinsic and extrinsic values. For instance, an individual motivated by efficiency may be more likely to follow traffic laws that align with efficient traffic flow but may be less inclined to fully stop at a 4-way stop intersection if it disrupts their efficiency. In such cases, individuals may technically follow the letter of the law but may struggle to align their actions with the spirit of the law, which aims to promote safety and fairness for all road users.
In conclusion, while people may possess the physical capability to follow the letter of the law, adhering to the spirit of the law can pose a more complex challenge. The spirit of the law requires individuals to understand and act upon the underlying intentions of legal enforcement, which can be influenced by personal values, interpretations, and judgments of culpability.
What is Law? Understanding the Basics of Legal Systems
You may want to see also
Explore related products
People may follow laws not because they agree with them, but because they want to avoid consequences
People may follow laws not because they agree with them, but because they want to avoid the consequences of breaking them. For example, a person might not agree with a 45 mph speed limit on a four-lane highway, but they will still follow it to avoid getting a penalty. Similarly, some people may pay taxes or obey the speed limit simply because they want to comply with the law, but many others do so because they want to avoid sanctions and penalties.
Some people may follow laws that make sense to them, such as those against murder, theft, and trespass, but they may ignore laws that they perceive as nonsensical, such as those against drug use. People may also follow laws that protect property, public safety, or personal safety, not because they fear the consequences but because they want to be considerate to those around them. However, this is not always the case, as some people may be willing to take the risk of breaking the law if they believe the benefits outweigh the potential penalties.
The presence of sanctions for lawbreaking can make it difficult to distinguish between those who follow the law out of a sense of obligation and those who do so to avoid punishment. This is especially true when non-compliance is risky and can result in tangible consequences. For example, a person may not pay taxes, but their only real option outside of society is a life on the streets. Similarly, a person might not want to pay taxes, but they have no choice as there is no land on Earth where one can live without the obligations of society and the state.
In some cases, laws may be impossible to follow, either because they are too complex or because the necessary information is not readily available. For instance, a child born in France to US citizen parents is legally required by US law to report all their bank accounts to the US government, but this law is impossible to follow if the child is unaware of it.
Appealing UCLA Law: Your Admission, Your Right to Appeal
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
All laws passed by Congress are done for public policy reasons. There have been instances where laws that are impossible to follow have been passed and defended in court. The intent behind the law is what matters.
During New York's COVID vaccination campaign, Governor Cuomo issued rules that put vaccinators in a seemingly impossible bind. They were to be fined for not vaccinating someone who was not eligible and also fined for not using up their vaccine doses.
A layman's term for a law that is impossible to follow is a "Catch-22". Another term is "antinomy", which refers to the mutual incompatibility of two laws.
People can choose to follow laws because they agree with them or because they are incapable of dealing with the consequences of breaking them.
Most people follow traffic laws because they do not want to deal with the consequences of breaking them.
![The Complete LLC & S-Corp Beginner's Guide: [2 books in 1] The Easy Way to Create & Manage Your Limited Liability Company or S Corporation so You Can Focus on What Matters Most (Start a Business)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71h5MqU4cvL._AC_UL320_.jpg)
