Hi everyone,

Based on a controversial music song and the computer game Earthworm Jim, I had the following idea: What if a person in the US doesn't consent to following laws, or does but doesn't understand laws and falls into a trap, winding up in jail?

Basically, I argue that every US citizen must try to follow laws. You might argue that some US citizens would prefer to live without using roads or other taxpayer-funded benefits, and simply don't consent to following laws. My response to that is political, and simply that we must follow some laws, like the law of gravity, and using democracy to benefit the health and prosperity of US human beings is the best way to do it--so everyone who lives here must be compelled to follow US law, even if he/she doesn't consent to it.

At the same time, I think I have grown to accept the idea that "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is wrong. The metaphor, which may not be originally mine, is: If you are playing a computer game that you think you know the rules to, but then the rules change--e.g., you find that there is a cryptic alternate interpretation to one of the rules that is shown and not told to you, and certain inconsistencies show up in terms of how laws are enforced and your learning style and brain functioning influences how you understand a certain law--then you might wind up doing something that might be seen as illegal by some but legal by others.

To me, the best approach to law and law enforcement and the judiciary is: Accept the law as it is written, literally. If you've ever realized that hints and innuendo and steganographic codes are all like painting, because there is no agreed upon dictionary and thus no set definitions to visual things you might see or interpret as you might want to interpret them, then you would accept the idea that the only way to convey true non-deniable and enforceable meaning to another human being is through the written word and carefully defined words that are in the dictionary.

At the same time, there are all sorts of procedural complications and precedent-based arguments and quiet legal traditions and tendencies to honor or not honor certain types of arguments in court. My assertion is that due to the fact that certain arguments and evidence are "secretly (in)admissible" in court settings, and that no non-lawyer can ever be likely to have a full understanding of US law, Americans should accept the idea that genuine and non-negligent ignorance of the law is an excuse. In particular, if you've never been warned about something that is illegal, I assert that you should be able to defend against criminal charges based on that. Every US citizen should make an effort to understand laws, but assuming that every law is intuitive and easy to follow without repercussion is something that I recently realized is based on bad policy.

In short, saying "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is like saying "ignorance of Greek mythology's impact on US culture is no excuse"...you might want to study it and you should know a little, enough to get by in real life. At the same time, it is not reasonable to expect American citizens to govern their financial/physical/citizenship health with knowledge about Greek mythology that is probably quite valuable but hard to learn, and the same thing holds true for understanding laws. You should have to know a little, follow the laws you should and do understand, and be held accountable for illegal activity that is clearly evil or that you should have known or learned about given your circumstances or that you did know (no lying should be allowed), but ignorance really should be an excuse.

Note: I don't think I'm breaking any laws and don't claim to be ignorant of US law or breaking any laws as far as I know. I am expressing a political opinion, mainly because I feel like it.

-Philip White (philipjwhite@yahoo.com)