The revisors of New York’s Penal Law intended no fundamental departure from this common-law rule in Penal Law §15.20, which provides in pertinent part:2. A person is not relieved of criminal liability for conduct because he engaged in such conduct under a mistaken belief that it does not, as a matter of law, constitute an offense, unless such mistaken belief is founded upon an official statement of the law contained in (a) a statute or other enactment . . . [or] (d) an interpretation of the statute or law relating to the offense, officially made or issued by a public servant, agency, or body legally charged or empowered with the responsibility or privilege of administering, enforcing or interpreting such statute or law. (Kadish et al., 2016, p. 227)
A good example is marijuana is legal in New York officially but since there is no regulated market it is still illegal to sell till the market is made. It would be a criminal violation and fine up to $250. If a person sells marijuana and gets arrested and there argument is it's legal the argument back would be it's legal to possess not sell which is a true statement.
"It's a violation to sell any amount of marijuana unlawfully under the MRTA, but harsh penalties for selling lower amounts have been removed.
"Because there's no regulated market, you would be subject to a criminal violation and a fine of up to $250, if you sell any amount under 3 ounces," said Eli Northrup, policy counsel for The Bronx Defenders. "Anything more than that is a misdemeanor." (Christopher Robbins, 2021)
A mistake in the law should lead to a minor offense, depending on the nature of the mistake. In the example I presented, a person sold marijuana, assuming it was legal based on the news and what others said. For such a mistake, a fine or even a misdemeanor could be an appropriate resolution. However, if the person continues to do so after the first time, it would indicate that the person was not mistaken but was actually making excuses, and a more severe punishment should be applied afterwards, escalating with each consecutive offense.
The maxim "ignorantia legis neminem excusat" finds its roots in Medieval law. Various justifications have been offered for the rule, all of which are pragmatic and utilitarian, prioritizing society's interests in deterring criminal conduct, fostering orderly judicial administration, and upholding the primacy of the rule of law over an individual's interest in avoiding punishment for unintentionally engaging in criminal conduct.
However, today, there is widespread criticism of the common-law rule mandating the categorical preclusion of the mistake of law defense. The utilitarian arguments for retaining the rule have been seriously questioned, and the fundamental objection lies in the fact that it is simply wrong to punish someone who, in good-faith reliance on the wording of a statute, believed that their actions were lawful. The basic objection to the maxim "ignorantia legis neminem excusat" may have had less force in ancient times when most crimes consisted of inherently recognized evil acts. In modern times, however, with the abundance of legislation making otherwise lawful conduct criminal (malum prohibitum), the "common law fiction that every man is presumed to know the law has become indefensible in fact or logic" (Kadish et al., 2016, p. 230).
We see that someone can be innocent if they were ignorant and committed a crime without knowing it was a crime. At the bottom, it states, "The common law fiction that every man is presumed to know the law has become indefensible in fact or logic." This is true; not every person knows the laws, and even if they know some simple things, the laws change all the time. No one can actually keep up with them perfectly, so how can we expect someone without training to know if the people with training have difficulty keeping up with them?
In many cases, yes, it should lead to minor offenses. Besides the fact that not everyone knows the laws, sometimes criminals figure out some laws and frame someone. Even innocent people can be incarcerated by a criminal. For example, if a person with a grudge against me comes into my car, pretends to be my friend, and drops cocaine in my car, then calls the police, telling them I am a drug dealer and that the evidence is in my car, should I really be convicted when someone did that to me? It's unfair if I am framed, but if criminals discover that excuses such as these can be used, every dealer in America would use this excuse to evade the law.
The best articles, links, and news delivered once a week to your inbox.