can this be a viable defense: ignorance that a crime was committed

[EXTRAPOLATER]

What else to do with this so-called luck except pushit. Short-stacked as it is.

AI Overview

Generally, ignorance of the law is not a viable defense in criminal cases. This principle, often expressed as "ignorance of the law is no excuse," is a fundamental concept in most legal systems. While there are some exceptions and nuances, the basic idea is that individuals are expected to know and understand the laws that apply to them.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

• "Ignorance of the law is no excuse":
  This maxim means that simply claiming not to know a law is not a valid defense against a criminal charge.
  
  
• Exceptions:
  In some limited circumstances, ignorance of the law might be relevant, particularly when combined with other factors. For example, if the law is particularly obscure or if the defendant can demonstrate they made reasonable efforts to understand the law but were still misled.
  
  
• Mistake of fact:
  A related but distinct defense is "mistake of fact." This defense argues that the defendant made a genuine error about a factual matter, which led them to believe their actions were lawful. For instance, if someone buys what they believe is a legal item, but it turns out to be prohibited, they might have a mistake of fact defense if they can prove their ignorance was reasonable.
  
  
• Strict liability offenses:
  Some crimes, called strict liability offenses, do not require proof of criminal intent (mens rea). In these cases, mistake of fact is generally not a defense.

In essence, while there are exceptions, the general rule is that ignorance of the law is not a valid defense in criminal cases. Individuals are expected to be aware of the laws that govern their actions.

===

Looks lovely, at least. I'd like to hear some examples of "Mistake of fact". I think that the aphorism, ignorance is bliss, is almost as misleading as our current legal systems.

Mistake of fact sounded viable when bliss prevailed, but I downgraded my ignorance portfolio thusly:

what are "strict liability offenses"?

AI Overview

Strict liability offenses are criminal or civil violations where intent or knowledge of wrongdoing is not required for conviction. In essence, if a person commits the prohibited act, they are liable, regardless of whether they intended to break the law or were even aware they were doing so.

Here's a more detailed explanation:
Key Characteristics:

• No Mens Rea Required:
  Unlike most crimes, strict liability offenses don't require proof of "mens rea," the mental state of the defendant (e.g., intent, knowledge, recklessness). The act itself (actus reus) is enough for liability.
  
  
• Focus on the Act:
  The prosecution only needs to prove that the defendant performed the prohibited action.
  
  
• Public Welfare Emphasis:
  Strict liability is often applied to offenses related to public safety, health, or welfare, where deterring certain actions is paramount.

Examples:

• Statutory Rape: Having sexual relations with a minor, regardless of whether the adult was aware of the minor's age.
  
  
• Traffic Violations: Speeding, running a red light, or driving without a valid license.
  
  
• Environmental Regulations: Violations related to pollution or hazardous waste disposal.
  
  
• Product Liability: Holding a manufacturer liable for defective products that cause harm, even without proof of negligence.
  
  
• Selling Alcohol to Minors:

Justification:

• Public Safety:
  Strict liability can be a powerful tool for deterring harmful behavior, especially in situations where it's difficult or impossible to prove intent or negligence.
  
  
• Enforcement Efficiency:
  Removing the need to prove mens rea can simplify and speed up the legal process.

Criticisms:

• Potential for Unfairness:
  Critics argue that strict liability can lead to unjust outcomes, particularly for individuals who unknowingly violate the law.
• Lack of Deterrent Effect:
  Some argue that strict liability might not be the most effective way to deter harmful behavior, as it doesn't account for varying levels of culpability.
  
  

===

For the record, no, yours truly did not commit any of the nastiness mentioned.
Over and down and out.