It is a much used adage that ‘ignorance is no excuse’ in the event that the laws of the land have been transgressed… but why is that? Surely ignorance is in fact the only excuse!  Why should it not be legitimate for someone to claim that they are innocent of having committed a crime by virtue of not having been aware that it was a crime?  Or asked another way, why should it be legitimate for someone to judge another against a regulation of which they were not aware?

The French judicial system refers to this adage as a ‘convenient fiction’ and indicates that it is employed as a defence against the possibility that all criminals would otherwise seek to avoid justice by means of claiming ignorance of the law which had been broken.  This ‘convenient fiction’ merely abrogates the state of all responsibilities concerning the communication of laws and the investigation of crimes – it is a lazy and quick way to avoid any form of difficulty.  Would it not be better were the state to live up to its responsibility towards its citizens and to ensure that they are properly and adequately informed about the laws of the land?  In 1999 the French Constitutional Advisory body (Conseil Constitutionelle) perhaps in response to this dilemna created a new objective of making the laws of the land both more intelligible and more accessible.  However, according to the figures in 2016, France has more than 8,000 laws, and more than 110,000 decrees which are currently valid.  It could be argued therefore than no matter how accessible these laws are, and no matter how intelligible, it remains a convenient fiction (or perhaps even an outright delusion) that any single member of the population could possibly be appraised of all of them.  In addition to this, if I have not been made aware of the fact that I am responsible for keeping myself informed about the laws of the land, then how can I be expected to have done so?  Surely therefore, the validity of this entire ‘fiction’ resides on the prerequisite that every citizen has been advised that they are responsible for informing themselves of the laws of the land.

It is also worthy of note that the self-same judicial system maintains a system of ‘presumed innocence’, that an individual is innocent unless specifically proven guilty.  Yet this rule clearly does not apply to being aware of the laws of the land since there is no requirement in law that asks the state to prove that it has made the individual aware of what constitutes legal behaviour and what does not.  It is presumed that the state has discharged its duty to the individual, whereas in reality, it is likely that the state has done nothing more than making available the laws to any who choose to look at them.  Yet how, can a person seek to inform themselves about a law if they are unaware of its existence?  It is logical to suppose therefore that the first step in any prosecution should be to establish that the suspected perpetrator is indeed familiar with the specific law in question?

In the event that a citizen is (or claims to be) ignorant of the law, should we then prosecute?  Surely a prerequisite to this being considered fair would be that every member of that society (or any other visiting society) has been provided an equal opportunity to make themselves aware of those laws?  (Which in the case of a visiting tourist may mean translating them all into another language.)  The difficulty with this is that the ability of any individual to establish with any certitude the legality of any action is entirely dependent upon the availability of information; information concerning what is not legal – but also concerning what is legal.  Otherwise, if I seek to find out whether or not it is illegal to sunbathe naked in the UK, unless is it recorded officially that it is legal, I can never be sure that it is, I can only be sure that I haven’t yet found the law that says it isn’t!!  If a person cannot establish whether or not something is legal, then they have no way of knowing whether or not they are operating within the law, and although they remain responsible for their actions, they cannot be considered to be delinquent in their intentions to remaining an upstanding member of society.

How then should this Gordian knot be tackled?  If it is unjust to judge people by laws with which they are unfamiliar, and equally impractical to expect that each person can be made familiar with all laws then where do we go?  Perhaps reducng the number of laws that we have to something on the level of the Inca 3 Rule system (Do not Lie, Do not Steal and Do not be Lazy) would be a little too simplistic, but clearly, where we expect individuals to understand the laws of the land in depth, then 8,000 is also unworkable.

It seems reasonable to me therefore that the state should accept a responsibility for ensuring that the populace are educated concerning the laws of the land.  This means that they need to actively train people in the laws of the land, so that they can have a clearer understanding of what may be expected of them and also of what they can expect of others.  This does not resolve the issue, the question of ignorance being an excuse remains, and the ethics of prosecuting someone unaware of the crime remains, but what it may do is to make the current systems fairer, in addition to helping prevent abuse – ensuring that people are sufficiently aware of their rights so that they are not unknowingly mistreated by others.

The responsibility to behave is individual, but this can only follow a responsibility to inform about standards – which is not individual, it is a common responsibility.