I don’t mean to be confrontational, I genuinely want to know where it “explicitly does”.
I’m not in the US and my countries criminal code has a § (§17 german stgb) that as long as you are legally competent you are responsible for your actions even if you were ignorant of the law.
If you are pointing at those that are not legally competent/ non compos mentis, I think the point there is not so much the not knowing of the law, but being unable to understand a law.
I assume some variation of this exist for other jurisdictions, but in the US, some crimes require prosection to prove “intent” (mens rea) Depending on the crime, you might have to know that it’s illegal for mens rea.
In US Tax Court, there’s precedence that ignorance of tax code is a defense for criminal tax.
Except in the cases where it explicitly does.
Which are?
I don’t mean to be confrontational, I genuinely want to know where it “explicitly does”.
I’m not in the US and my countries criminal code has a § (§17 german stgb) that as long as you are legally competent you are responsible for your actions even if you were ignorant of the law.
If you are pointing at those that are not legally competent/ non compos mentis, I think the point there is not so much the not knowing of the law, but being unable to understand a law.
I assume some variation of this exist for other jurisdictions, but in the US, some crimes require prosection to prove “intent” (mens rea) Depending on the crime, you might have to know that it’s illegal for mens rea.
In US Tax Court, there’s precedence that ignorance of tax code is a defense for criminal tax.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea#Ignorance_of_law_contrasted_with_mens_rea