to think committing a crime without knowing you were breaking the law is different to knowing your breaking the law?

[Karsyn]

hypothetical, came up in coversation at work today., i think it was because of something that someone read on the news. anyway. found i was in the minority in my opinion but wonder if MN agrees.

example being discussed was jaywalking. in the UK its not illegal but in the US it is. foreign visitor to the uS might not know and cross the road at a place they're not allowed to and get arrested and fined. i think, in cases like this, people who didn't know (because they're not familiar with laws in diff country, and who reads up on all the minor laws like this before visting another country?) shoudn't have to pay a fine. But people who do know and choose to do it anyway are different because they're making a concious decision to break the law.

colleagues unanimosly disagree and say people should be responsible whether they knew or not, to the same degree as someone who knew they were breaking the law

Obviously for major crimes it shouldn't apply, but for things like this? Especially when getting arrested/charged in a foreign country can mean you cant go back there, it seems a bit unfair when people genuinley have no idea they're committing a crime.

AIBU to think there's a difference?

I live in the US and I jaywalk all the time. Even in front of policemen. I think it might be a UK Urban myth tbh.

The sentence/punishment you can be given for any crime is always a maximum. So while the law has to apply to everyone in all circumstances, you don't always have to receive the same punishment, it can always be reduced, and it can be reduced as far as zero.

That's where the variability occurs; not in the question of whether or not you broke the law, which is absolute, but the question of what your punishment should be.

Also, there is no 7 vehicle length law in Arkansas afaik. The govt has a 3 second suggestion but it's not law. You can be pulled over for driving badly tho especially when you're clearly a tourist

might not know and cross the road at a place they're not allowed to and get arrested and fined.

LOL Arrested for jaywalking... You'd really have to piss the cop off for that, and even then you'd be arrested for disorderly conduct, not jaywalking.

You'll be lucky if the police even care.

The only reason the law exists (that I can think of) is so cars aren't held responsible if they accidentally hit an idiot darting in front of them. But even then it has to be proven they didn't have time to react.

Could have been Louisiana or Mississippi, we were on a road trip but pretty sure it was Arkansas... Weird if he made up a rule, maybe he was just fucking with us!!!

Just because it's a law made by foreigners, it does not make it any less of a law within their country.

I wouldn't like it if a visitor here decided one of our laws wasn't important because they did things differently in their own nation, and was therefore allowed to break laws here.

"I live in the US and I jaywalk all the time. Even in front of policemen. I think it might be a UK Urban myth tbh."

It might be in regards of the US, but it applies in Singapore (and I'd heard also in parts (or all) of Australia). Singapore also has a total ban on chewing gum. Also it has corporal punishment as part of the penal system (There are ooccasional 'sad face' stories from those who think that because they're foreign, the law and is sanctions will somehow not be applied to them. It is)

in england if you hit a person on the road you are automatically believed to be at fault unless you can prove otherwise pedestrians have right of way

MrsMonkey, man is mitigating and judge using discretion in that case.

The judge might not make that decision if the man had (say) intentionally taken non-prescription drugs.

I agree with freedom2post.
Everyone would claim ignorance and how would you prove it.

I think that morally there's a difference - it's obviously worse to knowingly break a law - but practically speaking, you can't start making that sort of distinction.

Agree with PP that if ignorance was allowed as an excuse, then there'd be people who'd deliberately break the law and then claim ignorance. Ignorance is a difficult thing to prove.

We were living in New York when DS1 was born, we hired a car for the drive for the hospital as we'd moved a little way out of Manhattan but I was still due to give birth back in the city.

After the delivery DH was sent out to buy me a bagel and found an officer writing him a ticket for parking within 10ft of a fire hydrant - sadly his British accent and even story of rushing wife to hospital to give birth wasn't enough to get out of a ticket!

I love having a fire hydrant in front of our house as it means nobody can park there!

Ignorance of the law is no defence.

HOWEVER, there are lots of cases, where it wouldn't be in the public interest to prosecute, so you'd generally get a warning only. This is the law in the UK, and is the case in a lot of other places too.

If it was a more serious crime which impacted on others, then it would be worth pursuing it, if only to make others aware that it is a criminal act and prevent similar crimes.

There are other countries where this is not the case; often for cultural reasons. I think its basic manners to be aware of things that we might consider petty, but are taken seriously abroad. The FCO website often detail more notable laws on their description of other countries, or advice you to educate yourself more generally if there are extensive issues about certain matters.

I don't think its at all hard to check FCO advice, but very few people can be bothered. So I lack sympathy with many people caught out by not knowing the local laws.

DD has just finished a year studying abroad in Amsterdam. At the beginning of her year there were various outings arranged for foreign students to introduce them to the city. One included a visit to a nightclub. At the entrance to the nightclub everyone's bags were searched. Two of the girls (German) had pepper spray in their handbags (to defend against muggers and other attackers). Apparently this is legal in Germany, but illegal on the Netherlands (and here). The girls, foreign students just arrived in the country and meaning no harm, were kept in police cells overnight and in the morning had to attend something like the equivalent of a magistrate's court, where they were fined. I think that was incredibly harsh, and I don't know what purpose was served. I suppose those girls will now have a criminal record. Very bravely, I think, they still chose to stay on in Amsterdam for the year.

Maybe they should have checked the Dutch laws before leaving home, but they were young and I suppose they'd thought it normal and so didn't imagine there could be a problem. Very surprised at the Dutch authorities in Amsterdam as they are, of course, famously relaxed about other things that are illegal in most countries!

(Apart from that incident DD and me are big fans of the Netherlands in general and the people are lovely.)

Nadia the issue with the case you've just posted is that carrying pepper spray in that way, would be because its a weapon to be used with intent, even if that intent is only in defence.

You could argue that it could be used in inappropriate situations or in a deliberately aggressive way.

Hence why pursuing a fine could well be deemed fair, as its an issue about protecting the public from being harmed and making sure that others are aware of the crime.

It would be too easy for any foreigner to claim ignorance and claim to be carrying one for self defence otherwise.

If you go to law school you spend a lot of time studying this kind of thing which is why law is so interesting.

Some laws are strict liability - liability without needing that knowledge. Others require a definite mental intention to commit that crime. Whether the law should ever have any offences of strict liability morally is another issue.

What I do say to my children when travelling abroad is laws different hugely all over the world and plenty of countries are very corrupt and do not even properly prove offences against you so be very polite and very careful. Do not assume your parents or the British embassy can ever be able to get you out of a mess whether that is having sex in Dubai with someone you are not married to or whatever it is which is against law in that country.

Interesting, Phaedra- I was taught

Ignorantia legis neminem excusat

exactly.

if you are smart enough to travel somewhere you can spend a few minutes finding out the rules. If you are 'too young' to work this out then you shouldn't be out without your mummy.

I've lived in Hong Kong, and in Zurich, Switzerland. Switzerland, they're so bloody law abiding that no-one EVER jay walked! In HK, jaywalking is illegal and HK Police, every so often, would round up a crowd of jaywalkers, all crossing the road at once, and give them a good telling off, also, I believe, on the spot fines.

Another jaw-dropping aspect of HK crime solving was, all places like banks, jewellery stores, had guards outside armed with shotguns. Odd robbers sometimes chanced it ... usually got shot, fatally, in the back while legging it! No -one every wailed about 'human rights', it was just accepted. Don't know if things have changed - this was the early 1990s.

No legal system could work with your position, OP.

As anyone could do anything, and simply claim they did not know it wasn't allowed. And nobody could prove otherwise!

Any legal system stipulates that it has to be assumed that every citizen knows the law. And it is the citizen's responsibility to inform themselves.

"sorry officer, I did not know it was not permitted to burgle/walk into someone's house/ run through a red light/ have sex with this girl as I honestly thought she was 16, not 13 etc etc.

If you travel, you better read up on the law of the country you visit! In some countries you cannot even hold hands in public.

You can be fined for jay walking in Germany. My DP was when he was a teenager.

Do people really think it is possible/practical to discover all thaws of a country before visiting?

Anyway, I do think there is a difference between wilfully breaking the law and doing it by accident but any leniency would be at the discretion of the police/magistrate/judge

Thaws = the laws

Owlcapone, you can think there is a difference. Everyone can think what they like.

But the courts would disagree with you

I think

I studied law at A Level. Men's Rea and Actus Reus (not sure if both are correctly spelt!) both need proving if someone breaks the law. The mens rea being the perpetrators knowledge of the act being illegal, actus reus being the illegal act.

It should work that, in order for the person to be found guilty of an illegal act, it proves they had the knowledge of illegality of the act they committed. If the person can prove they had no knowledge of what they did to be illegal, they can't be found guilty.

But, this was years ago. I never went on to practice law and I can't remember the cases we were taught for examples of not having mens rea.