On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 10:57:26 -0500, Greg Esres
wrote in Message-Id: :

Why aren't we held *innocent* of a crime (aviation related or not)
if we *thought* we were acting within the law at the time?

I agree conceptually, but you run into the problem that any lawbreaker
could claim ignorance, regardless of whether it was true.

I do believe that, morally, ignorance IS an excuse, in spite of what
Jefferson said, but it would cause great difficulty if the law took
that position.

Agreed.

However, with the myriad of new laws constantly being passed, it seems
unreasonable to _instantly_ hold all citizens responsible for knowing
exactly _all_ the points of each law (in each state in which they may
find themselves) the minute it is passed.

How often does the average citizen read The Federal Register?

It would seem reasonable, that if the government will hold its
citizens responsible for knowing _all_ the laws it passes, it should
shoulder the responsibility for directly informing each of them, or
devise another means that is equitable and just.

Laws are sometimes immoral. They can be unjust also.

Consider the poor fellow with the same first and last names of a
perpetrator. He was mistakenly arrested twice for the crimes of the
perpetrator who also had a middle name. This guy had to pay bail
twice without compensation for the errors of the law enforcement
officers who mistakenly arrested him. He has no recourse under the
law, as my lawyer explained that the police are held harmless in such
cases.