# How can I be accountable to a law that I cant interpret without a lawyer? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 7, 2005, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-i-be-accountable-to-a-law-that-i-cant-interpret-without-a-lawyer/307351 "2005-06-07T20:16:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-i-be-accountable-to-a-law-that-i-cant-interpret-without-a-lawyer/307351/21 "2005-06-08T03:43:18Z")
> [@Little Nemo](#): > > Start out with a nice simple law…\… but you start to see why there’s no such thing as a simple law. ``` That was fun to read. I feel like it should be in a textbook somewhere, except that it's better than textbook writing. ``` /hijack ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-i-be-accountable-to-a-law-that-i-cant-interpret-without-a-lawyer/307351/22 "2005-06-08T04:05:54Z")
> [@CrankyAsAnOldMan](#): > > Thus far this thread has seemed focused on criminal law. People want to chime in on opinions on other laws and legal codes? I don’t think lawyers litigating the fine points of contracts are merely parroting what their clients are saying. I have spent most of my legal career trying to talk my clients down from incredibly stupid positions. So no, I don’t parrot anything. OTOH, if your client wants you to make an argument, or in a negotiation take a position, that is not legally unsupportable, you pretty much have to do it. And in litigation, the lawyers don’t (usually) get to create the facts. You gotta dance with what you brought. So frequently your arguments are based on the client’s factual claims–and many of those are made before you had a chance to tell them to keep quiet. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-i-be-accountable-to-a-law-that-i-cant-interpret-without-a-lawyer/307351/23 "2005-06-08T04:47:42Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Note that in certain circumstances- “Ignorance of the Law” \*is \*an excuse. YMMV, IANAL. Didn’t some accounting corporation execs just get off because the court said they couldn’t possibly have known that a law was being broken? Maybe if was the high-and-mighties of Anderson or some such accounting firm. ---
**Author:** ![I\_don\_t\_care\_about\_your\_cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/f08c70/32.png) [@I\_don\_t\_care\_about\_your\_cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_don_t_care_about_your_cat)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-i-be-accountable-to-a-law-that-i-cant-interpret-without-a-lawyer/307351/24 "2005-06-08T07:21:46Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > What is it with you Liberals that think the cure for everything is more goverment? Isn’t there enough America already for you to hate? “You Liberals”? I’m a liberal, and I don’t think mrrealtime’s idea is a good one at all. The one thing this country’s got going for it is that we have laws protecting us _against_ government abuses (at least the ones that haven’t been pillaged by the current administration). The _last_ thing you want to do is entrust that _to_ the government. It’s _conservatives_ that are always lawyer-bashing. I wish laws _were_ less complicated. Most absolutely don’t need to be worded as opaquely as they are. They need to be precise, but not inscrutable. However, that’s not the lawyers’ fault, it’s the politicians who make the laws. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-i-be-accountable-to-a-law-that-i-cant-interpret-without-a-lawyer/307351/25 "2005-06-08T13:01:19Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > Didn’t some accounting corporation execs just get off because the court said they couldn’t possibly have known that a law was being broken? Maybe if was the high-and-mighties of Anderson or some such accounting firm. Not knowing a crime is being committed is not the same as not knowing the law. You are generally not culpable if someone is commiting a crime and conceiling from you. In the case of Andersen (e not o), the firm had been accused of obstruction of justice because they shreded documents. The conviction was overturned because the judge decided that the prosecution failed to prove that the INTENT was to hide some wrongdoing from an impending investigation. That’s kind of the reason we have complex laws and lawyers. So people can’t just make vague assertions. What law was broken? Was there intent? etc etc > [@Anaamika](#): > > Excellent argument. I’m convinced. > > /sarcasm off Is case you couldn’t tell, I was being sarcastic. So you basically turned sarcasm “off” for your reply. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-i-be-accountable-to-a-law-that-i-cant-interpret-without-a-lawyer/307351/26 "2005-06-08T16:13:36Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Not knowing a crime is being committed is not the same as not knowing the law. You are generally not culpable if someone is commiting a crime and conceiling from you. > > In the case of Andersen (e not o), the firm had been accused of obstruction of justice because they shreded documents. The conviction was overturned because the judge decided that the prosecution failed to prove that the INTENT was to hide some wrongdoing from an impending investigation. > > That’s kind of the reason we have complex laws and lawyers. So people can’t just make vague assertions. What law was broken? Was there intent? etc etc So it seems that the only time an ignorance plea works is if the law is so vague that it doesn’t draw a clear line between what is prohibited and what is not. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-i-be-accountable-to-a-law-that-i-cant-interpret-without-a-lawyer/307351/27 "2005-06-08T16:31:53Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > So it seems that the only time an ignorance plea works is if the law is so vague that it doesn’t draw a clear line between what is prohibited and what is not. It’s a little more complicated than that. I know there are some previous threads on the subject, but I can’t find them right now. Here is a quick summary. > **[Ignorantia juris non excusat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumed_knowledge_of_the_law)** > > Ignorantia juris non excusat or ignorantia legis neminem excusat (Latin for "ignorance of the law excuses not" and "ignorance of law excuses no one" respectively) is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because one was unaware of its content. > European-law countries with a tradition of Roman law may also use an expression from Aristotle translated into Latin: nemo censetur ignorare legem (nobody is thought to be ig... > **[Ignorantia juris non excusat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_legis_non_excusat)** > > Ignorantia juris non excusat or ignorantia legis neminem excusat (Latin for "ignorance of the law excuses not" and "ignorance of law excuses no one" respectively) is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because one was unaware of its content. > European-law countries with a tradition of Roman law may also use an expression from Aristotle translated into Latin: nemo censetur ignorare legem (nobody is thought to be ig... ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-i-be-accountable-to-a-law-that-i-cant-interpret-without-a-lawyer/307351/28 "2005-06-08T16:54:21Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > In the case of Andersen (e not o), the firm had been accused of obstruction of justice because they shreded documents. The conviction was overturned because the judge decided that the prosecution failed to prove that the INTENT was to hide some wrongdoing from an impending investigation. The [Andersen](http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/31may20051130/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-368.pdf) case did not hold that anybody didn’t prove anything. The court held that the jury was misinstructed on the meaning of the terms “knowingly” and “corruptly” > [@](#): > > The outer limits of this element need not be explored here because the jury instructions at issue simply failed to convey the requisite consciousness of wrongdoing. Indeed, it is striking how little culpability the instructions required. > For example, the jury was told that, “even if [petitioner] honestly and sincerely believed that its conduct was lawful, you may find [petitioner] guilty.” App. JA– 213. The instructions also diluted the meaning of “corruptly”so that it covered innocent conduct. Id., at JA– 212. > > . . . . > > The outer limits of this element need not be explored here because the jury instructions at issue simply failed to convey the requisite consciousness of wrongdoing. Indeed, it is striking how little culpability the instructions required. > For example, the jury was told that, “even if [petitioner]honestly and sincerely believed that its conduct was lawful, you may find [petitioner] guilty.” App. JA– 213. The instructions also diluted the meaning of “corruptly”so that it covered innocent conduct. Id., at JA– 212. > > . . . . > > For these reasons, the jury instructions here were flawed in important respects. The guilty verdict is flawed, but Andersen is not out of the woods. Andersen can be retried. The evidence quoted in the court’s opinion suggest there might be enough there to get a conviction. [http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.asp?feed=FT&Date=20050531&ID=4855442](http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.asp?feed=FT&Date=20050531&ID=4855442) ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-i-be-accountable-to-a-law-that-i-cant-interpret-without-a-lawyer/307351/29 "2005-06-08T17:07:08Z")
Here is the actual text from the New York Penal Code defining Murder in the Second Degree (which is the “regular” kind of murder). It sounds complicated, but from my post above you can see why it needs a lot of explanation. That said, I don’t think there’s anything in this law that a person of average intelligence wouldn’t understand. > [@](#): > > Section 125.25 Murder in the second degree > > A person is guilty of murder in the second degree when: > > 1. With intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of such person or of a third person; except that in any prosecution under this subdivision, it is an affirmative defense that: > > (a) The defendant acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse, the reasonableness of which is to be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant’s situation under the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be. Nothing contained in this paragraph shall constitute a defense to a prosecution for, or preclude a conviction of, manslaughter in the first degree or any other crime; or > > (b) The defendant’s conduct consisted of causing or aiding, without the use of duress or deception, another person to commit suicide. Nothing contained in this paragraph shall constitute a defense to a prosecution for, or preclude a conviction of, manslaughter in the second degree or any other crime; or > > 1. Under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person, and thereby causes the death of another person; or > > 2. Acting either alone or with one or more other persons, he commits or attempts to commit robbery, burglary, kidnapping, arson, rape in the first degree, criminal sexual act in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, aggravated sexual abuse, escape in the first degree, or escape in the second degree, and, in the course of and in furtherance of such crime or of immediate flight therefrom, he, or another participant, if there be any, causes the death of a person other than one of the participants; except that in any prosecution under this subdivision, in which the defendant was not the only participant in the underlying crime, it is an affirmative defense that the defendant: > > (a) Did not commit the homicidal act or in any way solicit, request, command, importune, cause or aid the commission thereof; and > > (b) Was not armed with a deadly weapon, or any instrument, article or substance readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury and of a sort not ordinarily carried in public places by law-abiding persons; and > > © Had no reasonable ground to believe that any other participant was armed with such a weapon, instrument, article or substance; and > > (d) Had no reasonable ground to believe that any other participant intended to engage in conduct likely to result in death or serious physical injury; or > > 1. Under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, and being eighteen years old or more the defendant recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of serious physical injury or death to another person less than eleven years old and thereby causes the death of such person. > > Murder in the second degree is a class A-I felony. ---
**Author:** ![Balle\_M](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/13edae/32.png) [@Balle\_M](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balle_M)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-i-be-accountable-to-a-law-that-i-cant-interpret-without-a-lawyer/307351/30 "2005-06-08T17:14:48Z")
> [@I don't care about your cat](#): > > However, that’s not the lawyers’ fault, it’s the politicians who make the laws. And quite a number of the politicians making laws written in such a way as to \*require \* lawyers are themselves…? ---
**Author:** ![js\_africanus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/87869e/32.png) [@js\_africanus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/js_africanus)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-i-be-accountable-to-a-law-that-i-cant-interpret-without-a-lawyer/307351/31 "2005-06-08T18:12:19Z")
> [@Gfactor](#): > > Nah, I do as much \*pro bono \* work as the next guy. How much free work do you do? That would be a lot more compelling if it weren’t for the fact that you went into a profession directly connected to a positive constitutional right. If we had a right to have our cappuccino made for us, then baristas would be doing a lot of _pro bono_ work, too. As for the OP, laws are often poorly written. Very poorly written. Ever heard of a legal draftsman? They’re the people who are trained specifically to write legal documents—if you’re interested you can look for books by F. Reed Dickerson. But even poorly written laws can be interpreted accurately by non-lawyers: I do it all the time as a zoning administrator. Our ordinance is poorly written, but rarely do I come to a situation where the ordinance is not quite clear when I apply logic to the text. Many of my problems seem to arise from the inability of others before me to think logically and I end up stuck with a long-standing policy that violates the ordinance; other times the result is clear but irrational (e.g., a banner sign on a building is proscribed, but the identical sign on plywood is perfectly acceptable). Another source of difficulty is the poor grammar, punctuation, and diction of those writing and reading laws. I am now fully convinced that every law (or set of laws) should have specific grammar and style guides defined as the guides by which the laws are written, and our society needs to adopt a far more strict adherence to what is proper English. The language liberal may say that the language is a living thing that needs to change; I say that such sentiments mean that more of the guilty will go free and more of the innocent will be screwed. Finally, try writing up a piece of law, post it, and see how we all can abuse it. When it reaches a form that is difficult to abuse, you’ll see just how readable it is. I’ve been through this and it ain’t easy. If anything, I’d say that the volume of law is ridiculous; however, just a little thought demonstrates how stupid such a claim would be. We have a trade off: be a nation of laws or a nation of arbitrary decisions. We’re a nation of laws, and we’ve got to take the fleas with the dog. ---
**Author:** ![js\_africanus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/87869e/32.png) [@js\_africanus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/js_africanus)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-i-be-accountable-to-a-law-that-i-cant-interpret-without-a-lawyer/307351/32 "2005-06-08T19:04:26Z")
This is from the township’s new junk ordinance which is in accordance with the model that the prosecutor said is the only junk ordinance he’ll enforce: > [@](#): > > …the term “junk” shall any motor vehicle…which [is] damaged… ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-i-be-accountable-to-a-law-that-i-cant-interpret-without-a-lawyer/307351/33 "2005-06-08T19:05:01Z")
> [@js\_africanus](#): > > That would be a lot more compelling if it weren’t for the fact that you went into a profession directly connected to a positive constitutional right. If we had a right to have our cappuccino made for us, then baristas would be doing a lot of _pro bono_ work, too. Interesting point, but the constitution does not say that you get a free lawyer who is unpaid, that would violate a different constitutional provision. [http://www.bristolcpcs.org/Champion2002.html](http://www.bristolcpcs.org/Champion2002.html). It is the _state_’s responsibility to provide indigent defendants with counsel. > [@](#): > > Under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, State governments are required to provide counsel for the appeal of criminal convictions imposed on persons who are financially unable to hire counsel. See Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811 (1963); Swenson v. Bosler, 386 U.S. 258, 87 S.Ct. 996, 18 L.Ed.2d 33 (1967); Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 107 S.Ct. 1990, 95 L.Ed.2d 539 (1987). > > It should be pointed out that the obligation to provide counsel rests with the State, and not with the legal profession as a whole. Although lawyers have a long tradition of pro bono activity, the legal profession cannot assume the obligation to solve government’s responsibility by providing free representation. Since only a small percentage of bar members are experienced in criminal law, an unfair burden would be placed on qualified attorneys if they were required to represent a large percentage of indigent defendants on a pro bono basis. As the Kansas Supreme court pointed out, “We do not expect architects to design public buildings, engineers to design highways, dikes and bridges, or physicians to treat the indigent without compensation. When attorneys’ services are conscripted for the public good such taking is akin to the taking of food or clothing from a merchant or the taking of services from any other professional for the public good.” Stephan v. Smith, 747 P.2d 816 at 842 (Kan. 1987). [http://www.state.il.us/defender/isba.html](http://www.state.il.us/defender/isba.html) _Pro bono_ service is not tied to any constitutional right but to the need for legal assistance. [http://www.courts.state.mn.us/lprb/95bbarts/bb1095.html;](http://www.courts.state.mn.us/lprb/95bbarts/bb1095.html;) Moreover, it is exactly in the cases where there is no constitutional right to counsel that\* pro bono \* lawyers is most important. The state has to pay lawyers to represent indigent defendants–they get represented. At Legal Aid, for example, we would not take cases where people had a right to counsel (criminal, and termination of parental rights, mostly) because those people could get appoionted counsel that was paid out of the appropriate budget. If we represented them, we would be squandering valuable grant money for somebody who could get a lawyer that some other entity was required to pay for. ---
**Author:** ![RickNZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a8b319/32.png) [@RickNZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickNZ)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-i-be-accountable-to-a-law-that-i-cant-interpret-without-a-lawyer/307351/34 "2005-06-08T22:04:15Z")
The problem with the legal system in NZ (may be the same in the US) is that it generally relies on affidavits, ie: peoples word. People lie! I just wish law involved more impartial investigation and common sense and less reliance on affidavits. ---
**Author:** ![D.E.S.K.Top668](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f07891/32.png) [@D.E.S.K.Top668](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D.E.S.K.Top668)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2005, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-i-be-accountable-to-a-law-that-i-cant-interpret-without-a-lawyer/307351/35 "2005-06-08T22:57:19Z")
I hope I’m not out of line with this, but isn’t the basic answer to a relatively basic question is that there’s a major difference between “can’t interpret without a lawyer” and can’t _be bothered to_ interpret without a lawyer?" Just my two cents, DESK ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-i-be-accountable-to-a-law-that-i-cant-interpret-without-a-lawyer/307351/36 "2005-06-09T04:15:06Z")
> [@RickNZ](#): > > The problem with the legal system in NZ (may be the same in the US) is that it generally relies on affidavits, ie: peoples word. > People lie! > I just wish law involved more impartial investigation and common sense and less reliance on affidavits. The same thing seems to be the case here. I want to hear a reasonable defense of the weight given to eyewitness testimony when it seems to have been demonstrated as inaccurate or biased in many instances. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2005, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-i-be-accountable-to-a-law-that-i-cant-interpret-without-a-lawyer/307351/37 "2005-06-12T03:33:19Z")
There’s a line in Richard Mitchell’s _Less than Words Can Say_, contrasting societies with few laws, which everyone knows; to societies with many laws, all of which no one knows. He was not pleased with our legislative & jurisprudential traditions. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-i-be-accountable-to-a-law-that-i-cant-interpret-without-a-lawyer/307351.md?page=1)