Little Laws, Big Impact: When Did We Accept This?

Many people consider themselves law-abiding citizens, but a poll by onepoll.com found that the average person commits around seven crimes per week. While most people would never consider committing serious crimes like murder or theft, they may be more inclined to break little laws that are seen as socially acceptable. These minor infractions, such as speeding, jaywalking, or even singing Happy Birthday in public, are often broken without a second thought. However, the question of whether it is okay to break these laws is a complex one, involving the relationship between ethics and legality.

Speeding and other traffic violations

While some people may not consider these minor infractions to be a big deal, speeding and other traffic violations can have serious consequences. They can result in costly fines and legal fees, higher insurance rates or even the inability to obtain insurance, and in some cases, driver's license suspension or revocation. In addition, speeding endangers not only the life of the speeder but also all the people on the road around them, including law enforcement officers. In 2022, speeding killed 12,151 people, and it has been a factor in approximately one-third of all motor vehicle fatalities over the past two decades.

Other common traffic violations include illegal U-turns, failure to signal a turn, driving without headlights at night, parking in a fire lane, and driving with expired inspection or registration stickers. These violations can also result in traffic citations, which can have similar consequences to speeding, such as fines, legal fees, and increased insurance rates.

While some people may view breaking these laws as "OK" if the crimes are minor, it is important to remember that the consequences of these actions can be severe. Speeding and other traffic violations are not just about breaking the law; they can have far-ranging consequences that affect the safety and well-being of everyone on the road.

Ignorance of the law

Breaking the law is something that few people ever intend to do, but it is not uncommon for people to break the law without even realising it. Ignorance of the law, however, is generally not accepted as a valid excuse for breaking it. The legal principle of 'ignorantia juris non excusat' (Latin for "ignorance of the law excuses not"), or 'ignorantia legis neminem excusat' ("ignorance of law excuses no one"), holds that a person who is unaware of a law may still be liable for violating that law.

The rationale behind this doctrine is that if ignorance were a valid excuse, anyone charged with a criminal offence could simply claim that they were unaware of the law in question to avoid liability, even if they genuinely knew what the law was. Thus, the law assumes that all persons within a given jurisdiction have knowledge of all the laws that apply to them, regardless of how transiently. This is, of course, an impossible standard, even for those with substantial legal training. However, this is considered a necessary measure to ensure that 'wilful blindness' cannot be used as a basis for exculpation.

In criminal law, ignorance of the law may not clear a defendant of guilt, but it can be considered during sentencing, particularly if the law is unclear or the defendant sought advice from relevant authorities. For example, in a Canadian case, a person was charged with possessing gambling devices after being advised by customs officials that it was legal to import them into Canada. Although the defendant was convicted, the sentence was an absolute discharge. In another case, four hunters in British Columbia were acquitted of game offences because the law had been changed while they were in the wilderness hunting and they had no way of knowing about the change.

In some jurisdictions, there are exceptions to the rule that ignorance of the law is not a valid defence. For instance, under US federal criminal tax law, an 'actual good faith belief based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law' has been ruled as a valid legal defence. Similarly, in the case of Lambert v. California (1957), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a person who is unaware of a malum prohibitum law cannot be convicted of violating it if there was no probability that they could have known the law existed.

While it is not realistic to expect everyone to memorise all the laws, it is important to be aware of the laws that are relevant to your daily life and undertakings. To get information about the law, you can contact a lawyer or notary, consult legal information websites, or use services offered by the government.

Ethical vs. legal obligations

While most people consider themselves law-abiding citizens, it is not uncommon for individuals to break minor laws, whether knowingly or unknowingly. A poll by onepoll.com found that the average person commits around seven crimes per week. Speeding, for instance, is a common offence, with 46% of people surveyed admitting to driving over the speed limit. Other examples of minor law-breaking include texting while driving, littering, and illegally downloading music.

So, when did this become acceptable? Well, it hasn't, but the perception of breaking minor laws has changed over time. A significant number of people view breaking the law as "OK" if the crimes are minor. In the onepoll.com survey, 58% of respondents held this view, and more than one-third were not bothered at all by their own law-breaking.

This shift in perception is concerning, as it indicates a growing normalisation of minor crimes. However, it is important to remember that these "small" infractions can still have significant consequences. For example, jaywalking may be common in many cities, but it can result in a fine, and in recent years, Los Angeles has charged up to $190 for this offence. Similarly, failing to update your driver's license when you move can result in tickets and even a license suspension.

While public perception may be changing, it is essential to understand the ethical and legal implications of our actions. From an ethical standpoint, we should strive to uphold the values of justice, fairness, and respect for the law. Breaking the law, even in minor ways, can have negative consequences for ourselves and others, and it undermines the social contract that is essential for a functioning society.

Legally, the consequences of breaking minor laws vary depending on the jurisdiction and the specific circumstances of the offence. While some minor infractions may only result in a fine or a warning, others can lead to more severe penalties, including jail time. Additionally, the enforcement of these laws can be inconsistent, and factors such as bias and discrimination can play a role in who is punished and how severely.

In conclusion, while public perception may be shifting towards greater acceptance of minor law-breaking, it is essential to consider the ethical and legal implications of our actions. Breaking the law, even in seemingly insignificant ways, can have negative consequences and undermine the social contract that is necessary for a just and functioning society. As such, we should strive to uphold our ethical obligations and respect the legal system, even in cases where the law may seem arbitrary or unnecessary.

Intentional law-breaking

It is important to distinguish between ethics and the law. While the two may overlap, they are not the same. Ethics are derived from personal beliefs, societal norms, and philosophical theories, whereas laws are created by governing bodies. As such, laws can be influenced by various factors and are not always morally right. Therefore, individuals are tasked with making their own moral decisions, and in certain situations, it may be morally right to break the law.

A poll by onepoll.com found that the average person commits around seven crimes per week, with many of these being minor infractions. For example, jaywalking is a common offence in many cities, although there is no federal law prohibiting it. Other examples of minor law-breaking include speeding, illegal music downloads, and not wearing a seatbelt.

More significant intentional law-breaking can occur when individuals feel that a law is unjust or immoral. For instance, during the Nazi regime in Germany, there were laws depriving Jewish people of their basic human rights. Helping a Jewish citizen, even by providing medical treatment, was illegal, but clearly not immoral. In this case, breaking the law was morally right.

Another example of when breaking the law may be morally justified is when laws protect the rich and powerful at the expense of the poor and disadvantaged. However, it is important to note that this is a dangerous view, as laws are created to maintain order and provide a legal framework for rights, responsibilities, and conduct.

In summary, while most people consider themselves law-abiding citizens, it is not uncommon for minor laws to be broken, often without even realising. However, in certain situations, individuals may intentionally break the law as a result of their own moral judgment.

Law-breaking as a rite of passage

In cultural anthropology, a "rite of passage" is a term used to describe a ceremony or ritual that occurs when an individual leaves one group to enter another. It involves a significant change of status in society. While rites of passage are diverse and found throughout many cultures worldwide, they are often associated with adolescence and the transition to adulthood.

In modern society, some might argue that breaking minor laws has become a rite of passage for young people. A poll by onepoll.com found that the average person commits around seven crimes per week, with speeding, talking/texting while driving, and littering being the most common offences. Interestingly, 20% of people surveyed didn't believe that their actions were illegal, and 58% viewed breaking minor laws as "OK".

This normalisation of minor law-breaking could be seen as a type of rite of passage, marking the transition from adolescence to adulthood. It could be argued that these "small crimes" are committed so regularly that they have become socially acceptable, especially among young people seeking to assert their independence and challenge authority.

However, it's important to note that breaking the law, even in minor ways, can still have serious consequences. For example, jaywalking or prank calling may seem harmless, but they can result in fines or even criminal charges. Additionally, what may seem like a minor offence to one person could significantly impact another. For instance, copyright infringement or sharing prescription medication can have economic and health implications for creators and patients, respectively.

In conclusion, while law-breaking may be viewed as a rite of passage for some young people, it's essential to recognise that it is not a harmless act and can have far-reaching consequences. Instead, society should focus on creating positive rites of passage that promote personal growth and a sense of community, such as those found in many Native and African-American communities.

Frequently asked questions