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?

Thinking back, I'm sure that only applies to murder.

I thought proving mens rea is proving that the act was deliberate, or having a guilty mind, rather than it relating to knowledge of the law (another long time ago law a level.... )

It is often that foreign people get in trouble for minor things because they are unaware of certain laws, plus the language barrier. I know a Polish guy got arrested for carrying a knife while he was actually carrying his work tools.

I agree with you OP but ignorance is no defence. It has to be assumed that everyone knows the law and is subject to it or everyone who was arrested would say "I didnt know it was illegal to chop my neighbours head off and feed it to the dog".

Certain things are illegal almost everywhere -- theft, murder, etc.
But some are more likely formalities, and if you're just visiting, you might be unaware. A formal warning would do, arrest is over the top.

"It is an offense to activate your burglar alarm and leave the property if you haven't nominated a key-holder who can access your house to switch off your siren should it go off"

Only if the council has so enacted it, and I don't think many do, the 20 minute limit on noise is more relevant.

Any moral law, there's no difference, laws which have no basis in morality (like jaywalking) then there is a difference, but no practical effect, it's still reasonable to pay the appropriate fine. Of course such laws are unreasonable, but you are still breaking them just the same.

Where will you draw the line though OP?

And will you draw the line, or shall I, or the lady next door?

And how do you prove someone knows about the law or not? We could all claim, oh I didn't know that! as ad efence - its madness.

the double standard you are advocating would encourage ignorance would it not? Surely as a society that would be a major flaw?

The law must apply to all - it is the only fair and sensible options. Mitigating circumstances can be argued at the police station or in front of the magistrates or wherever, but I believe we are a better society for at least striving for equality in the law.

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

I'm pretty sure I don't know all the laws of the UK, let alone other countries I might visit.

Owlcapone, you can think there is a difference.

Gosh, thank you for allowing me my opinion.

I think you should perhaps read and understand someone's entire post before commenting though.

Thatbloodywoman - you are right. Actus Reus is intention to commit the (illegal) act. This is different from not knowing the act was illegal. You could intend to kill someone and therefore have Actus Reus for murder, but (theoretically) not know that killing someone was unlawful (you might think that you are allowed to kill in self defence or other circumstances).

BeCool I agree.
The average person probably understands the broad brush of English law but the arcane workings of it are solely for specialised professionals. No tourist can hope to have a grip.