Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In law, ignorantia juris non excusat (Latin for "ignorance of the law excuses not"), [1] or ignorantia legis neminem excusat ("ignorance of law excuses no one"), [2] is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely by being unaware of its content.
The fundamental policy in the operation of a legal system is that ignorantia juris non excusat (ignorance of the law is no excuse).It would completely undermine the enforcement of any law if the person potentially at fault was able to raise as a successful defence that he or she had not been aware of the particular law.
Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225 (1957), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the defense of ignorance of the law when there is no legal notice. [1] The court held that when one is required to register one's presence, failure to register may be punished only when there is a probability that the accused party had knowledge of the law before committing the crime of failing to ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
In law, the principle of imputation or attribution underpins the concept that ignorantia juris non excusat —ignorance of the law does not excuse. All laws are published and available for study in all developed states. The said imputation might also be termed "fair notice".
Case history; Prior: Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: Holding (1) A genuine, good faith belief that one is not violating the Federal tax law based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law is a defense to a charge of "willfulness", even though that belief is irrational or unreasonable; (2) a belief that the Federal income tax is ...
Research ethics is a discipline within the study of applied ethics. Its scope ranges from general scientific integrity and misconduct to the treatment of human and animal subjects. The social responsibilities of scientists and researchers are not traditionally included and are less well defined.
Elizabeth Anscombe criticised modern ethical theories, including Kantian ethics, for their obsession with law and obligation. [86] As well as arguing that theories which rely on a universal moral law are too rigid, Anscombe suggested that, because a moral law implies a moral lawgiver, they are irrelevant in modern secular society. [87]