morality ignorance and interpretations of law

In “Morality Influences How People Apply the Ignorance of the Law Defense,” Alter, Kernochan, Darley, et al. (2007) present the findings of four empirical studies showing how the perceived morality of the defendant influences decisions regarding determinations of guilt. In all four of the studies, the researchers found that laypeople will judge a defendant more harshly when the defendant is perceived of as an immoral person—regardless of whether the defendant claims ignorance of the law. The authors contend that the law should reflect the “moral intuitions” of the people, allowing for a differentiation between the actus reus (the criminal act) and the mens rea (criminal intent). Complicating matters is the fact that American legal precedent does not allow for an ignorance of the law defense; a person cannot hide behind claims to not know the law. A person who genuinely does not know that an act is criminal cannot have criminal intent: something that presents a moral conundrum for legal analysts.
If intent is equated with moral culpability and thus, legal definitions of guilt, then the law must also be able to distinguish between genuine criminal intent and genuine ignorance. As Rosenweig (2013) puts it, the no-ignorance standard applies to crimes that are “self-evident wrongs,” and there are a slew of acts deemed criminal that are not necessarily self-evidently so (p. 1). A prime example would be not knowing that a certain substance had been recently designated as a controlled or banned substance, especially given that laws governing controlled substances are subject to change and an average person cannot be reasonably expected to keep up with every statute (Kerr, 2015). Many laws are either obscure or too complex to understand, or breaking those laws might not actually cause harm.
The reasoning behind the denial of ignorance principle is utilitarian in nature, according to Alter, Kernochan, Darley, et al. (2007). One reason is that it is categorically impossible to determine definitively whether a person was ignorant of the law. It is simpler to determine knowledge of the law, such as when a person has professional authority to know about the issues pertinent to the case. Yet proving ignorance is not possible. Another utilitarian function of the denial of ignorance as a valid excuse is that it does encourage citizens to take a more active part in learning about the law. Participating in a democracy does demand a great degree of personal responsibility. Finally, the slippery slope argument applies: if ignorance were permitted as a valid excuse, it could lead to individuals claiming all sorts of unique personal interpretations of the law. To maintain the integrity of the law and prevent too much ambiguity, the courts have consistently held that ignorance is not a legitimate defense.
Firmly denying claims of ignorance does lead to problems, though. For one, doing so precludes the law from keeping up with prevailing social norms (Alter, Kernochan, Darley, et al, 2007). Criminal law is only valid insofar as it coincides with social norms; acts that were illegal a century ago may no longer be so, and vice-versa. In a diverse society, it is necessary to recognize that age or country of origin might impact one’s knowledge of the law. Some laws may remain on the books long after their usefulness, allowing innocent people to be charged with archaic offenses. Generally, individuals cannot be held legally responsible for knowing every statute, especially when an at does not seem illegal from a common sense standpoint. Some examples would include local statutes that prevent homeowners from collecting rainwater, which is illegal in some states. Given that statutes like these can vary from state to state, it is also unreasonable to hold citizens responsible for knowing every law in every state.
The Supreme Court has ruled ambiguously on cases involving ignorance, often seeming to support the tenability of ignorance. “If the underlying illegal act is not obviously wrongful, then criminal punishment is not appropriate unless the defendant acted wrongfully by intentionally disobeying the law,” (Alter, Kernochan, Darley, et al, 2007, p. 4). Presumably, the determination of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt also depends on identifying whether the defendant did act with intent. Proving intent might be challenging, but it is necessary in a society that upholds principles like reasonableness. Legal decisions are often made by appeals to common sense, rather than to rigid interpretations of the law. For example, if a person commits an offence by accident, it is not necessary to hold that person accountable. The empirical studies conducted by Alter, Kernochan, Darley, et al. (2007) go beyond a mere rhetorical analysis or philosophical discussion, to show how indiviudals actually repond to different scenarios. A psychological experiment can be used to show how lawmakers might change their approach to the ignorance defense, and can be used to create evidence-based policies.
Ultimately, the authors argue that the law retains far more legitimacy and even, ironically, consistency, when it reflects the prevailing moral sentiments of the general populace. It is important to point out that the American legal system is based on precedent and not on statute, which does allow for greater flexibility in interpreting an act. What Alter, Kernochan, Darley, et al. (2007) also show is that perceptions do matter. When a person claims ignorance—even when that claim can be readily substantiated—the jury will also look for additional features such as the person’s moral credibility in other areas of his or her life. If an individual is deemed morally upright in general, the person will be afforded the benefit of the doubt, perhaps forgiven for possibly not knowing or misinterpreting a law that is obscure or recently passed.
References

Alter, A.L., Kernochan, J., Darley, J.M., et al. (2007). Morality influences how people apply the ignorance of the law defense. Law & Society Review 41(4): 819-864.
Kerr, O. (2015). Ignorance of the law is no excuse: or is it? The Washington Post. 18 June, 2015. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/06/18/ignorance-of-the-law-is-no-excuse-or-is-it/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2d31833157ad
Rosenweig, P. (2013). Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but it is reality. The Heritage Foundation. 17 June, 2013. https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/report/ignorance-the-law-no-excuse-it-reality