Like the title says, is it possible to be 100% in compliance with all applicable laws in whatever jurisdiction you find yourself in, 100% of the time for your entire life?
How would you even know?
Flat out impossible.
And ignorance is no excuse. 
Not possible.
The closest you can get is to sit still and do absolutely nothing. Unfortunately you’re then guilty of loitering.
And then you’re called for jury duty.
Why?
I’d say more like practically impossible. Most of us can manage the basics: to have up-to-date license plates and pay our property taxes on time. And avoid committing armed robbery or murder, not matter how much that idiot richly deserved it.
But have you ever thrown a dry cell battery (e.g. AA) in the trash? That’s against the law in many places.
Ever filled out some aspect of a tax return using what you thought was good faith when you weren’t 100% sure exactly what that 40-word sentence in the instructions really meant? Odds are you violated the law. Or even if you were 100% sure it meant X but it really meant Y. Still a violation. Or took a deduction where you had to estimate the amount and didn’t have solid documentation? That’s a violation too.
Have you ever exceeded the speed limit or rolled a stop sign? If you don’t drive, did you ever do that on a bicycle? Violation. Ever jaywalked? Violation.
Has a piece of trash ever blown out of your vehicle? Violation.
Did you ever use slightly too much bug killer or herbicide, or mix it just a few percent too rich or too lean? Violation.
Or inadvertantly walked out of a store without paying for something? Violation.
etc.
I’ve done every one of the above some time in the last 50 years. So have you.
Even folks who pride themsleves for whatever reason on being in full conformance with every regulation they’ve ever heard of, probably have only heard of 20% of the regulations which they are subject to. If you (any you) just sit at home and play internet all day then there’s a lot less potential for violations versus somebody who’s out recreating or DIYing or hobbying all over the place.
But I’d wager no adult outside an institution can factually say they’ve not violated a law this year, much less in their adult life. They may not know what they’ve done, but rest assured they did it.
Is this not a perverse way to run a society?
I think its the only realistic way to run a society. I don’t think it would be possible to write laws so precisely that you would always include the sensible cases (a guy just dumping his household trash out the back of his car on the street every week) and always exclude the “innocent” cases (accidentally having a receipt blow out of your window, to use the LSLGuy example). You just have to have a “no littering” law and rely on having enough enforcement power and common sense such that only the important cases get prosecuted. In practice this seems to work well most of the time, and generally law abiding people go about their business without being called to justice every time they inadvertently break a law.
The alternative is to dream up a 10,000 page no littering law to attempt to cover every single variation of circumstances and even then you probably wouldn’t get it right. When you add this up across all the regulations in modern society and millions of people interacting I just don’t see an alternative other than having most people technically breaking the law all the time but having enough common sense not to drag them to court every single time.
It sure doesn’t appeal to my mathematical nature, but the world is a messy place.
Are you referring to criminal law?
For example, a city may have an ordinance concerning timely mowing of lawns, but the penalty is a citation and possibly a civil penalty. Are you including things like that?
What does the term mens rea mean?
I don’t hang out in Royal Oak Michigan, but my guess is that some places I do go also ban dumping dog feces in third party dumpsters. OK, I cleaned up after my dog, now where do I put it? Does eating at a restaurant entitle me to drop the droppings in their dumpster?
How about the recent thread on which lane to turn into? The one on shower heads?
Could it be that we could get along without some of these laws?
There were other kinds of societies before, and probably still are. So it’s certainly not the only realistic way. It may or may not be the only good way to run a society, but that’s subjective.
There’s also the alternative of no law against littering at all. Littering used to be a terrible problem, now it has gotten much better. Do you think society changed because of the law, or the law was changed because of society?
Bricker, my motivation was a petition going around the internet for “Caylee’s Law” the day the jury reached their verdict. It just struck me as a terrible response to things not turning out the way a bunch of unaffected spectators would have liked.
So I guess my qualifications are “Laws that somebody managed to get passed”. Something that penalizes someone for an action they performed or didn’t perform. That includes tickets of various sorts, but not “your dog peed on my lawn, you owe me money” types of lawsuits.
I am fairly certain that everyone has committed mopery at some point. Guilty as charged here.
I am fairly certain that it isn’t possible to be in compliance of the law at all times. The law is system of logic and it has bugs just like programming languages do. I always wanted to ask a similar question about whether you could get caught in a true Catch-22 scenario under U.S. laws that is impossible to get out of even if it was no fault of your own.
IANA lawyer, but IMO … In code law, it means almost exactly zero. Conversely, in common law, it means rather a lot.
As **Driver8 **says, we presently leave the “common sense” out of the code law and hope to provide it at the prosecutorial or juridical level.
Much debate (some of it even involving actual facts & expertise!) surrounds the question of whether that’s either fair or consistent enough on the one hand, or sufficient bulwark against creeping administrative tyranny on the other.
My current take in that debate is that since there’s a bunch of screaming on both sides, we’re obviously not too far from the middle. Which seems about right to me, net of a few outliers.
I don’t know of any official cites because I’ve looked for them before, but the law regarding cleaning up your dog’s poo definitely made a difference where I live; it was quite a sudden change. It meant that scooping up your dog’s poo was seen (where I lived) as something you just had to do, even though it’s disgusting. Councils put up bins for putting the poo in. Companies advertised pooper-scoopers. It became the norm to clean your dog’s poo up, rather than seeming like an overly-clean weirdo, as it did when I was a kid.
I just Googled ‘Caylee’s Law’ and can’t see how it would have lead to this thread, unless you think that many of us would otherwise fail to report their missing children for 30 days, then profit from it; that doesn’t, to me, seem as likely as jaywalking.
No doubt there are some local level laws that have outlived their purpose, but unless you’re making the case that this is a good option for all of them, my point remains. I was using littering simply as an example. That being said, I think you will have problems if you remove all disincentive for simply being able to dump your waste on the side of the road, a much cheaper and convenient option for certain types of waste than having to go to the dump or pay extra for removal.
Other than statutory rape, can you give me an example of criminal “code law” that does not include a mens rea requirement?
Surely you’re joking, counselor. Drunk driving? Involuntary manslaughter?
How about picking a pretty feather off the ground and taking it home?
Or as a rancher, legally poisoning coyotes who’ve been devestating your livestock, not realizing a bald eagle would come and eat the carcasses?
Not to mention all sorts of regulatory stuff by the IRS, EPA and others with civil penalties as severe as many felonies.
Really, you need to let us know when you’re joshing with us.
I’m not joking, and don’t call me Shirley.
Err… Surely.
What are the elements of involuntary manslaughter? Typically, they include an act or an omission which amounts to culpable negligence. It’s true there’s no intent to cause a death, but there is still a mens rea requirement – you have to have criminal negligence.
Drunk driving…
If your intoxication is voluntary, then your mena rea was the general intent of getting plozted, even if you didn’t have any plan to drive. But if someone slipped you a mickey, you cannot be convicted of DUI.
Granted. We can add misdemeanor cases under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to the list of sanctioned strict liability crimes.
But I don’t believe that these kinds of violations are very common in most people’s lives – certainly not to the extent discussed by the OP.
Like what?
So far we have statutory rape and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
How many do we need?