dslreports logo
site
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search Topic:
uniqs
15
share rss forum feed


scelli
Native New Yorker
Premium
join:1999-08-07
FLOT/FEBA
kudos:1
reply to Oleg

Re: [419] my brother got a check today.....

said by Oleg:

I just do not understand why they always hold a victim responsible.

They don't always hold the victim responsible and it's a gross exaggeration to claim so. However: Here's just one reason why those in the justice system can do so on pretty solid legal ground should the powers that be choose such a course:

Ignorantia juris non excusat

(Latin for: Ignorance of the law does not excuse.)
--
The maximum effective range of an excuse is ZERO meters!

peterboro
Avatars are for posers
Premium
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON

1 recommendation

said by scelli:

said by Oleg:

I just do not understand why they always hold a victim responsible.

They don't always hold the victim responsible and it's a gross exaggeration to claim so. However: Here's just one reason why those in the justice system can do so on pretty solid legal ground should the powers that be choose such a course:

Ignorantia juris non excusat

(Latin for: Ignorance of the law does not excuse.)

A more appropriate term is "willful blindness" or “conscious avoidance,” and it first surfaced in case law in 1861 in Regina v. Sleep. This is common law we use here in Canada which come from England.


AVD
Respice, Adspice, Prospice
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1
reply to scelli
Ignorance that the check is a fraud =/= ignorance of the law


scelli
Native New Yorker
Premium
join:1999-08-07
FLOT/FEBA
kudos:1
said by AVD:

Ignorance that the check is a fraud =/= ignorance of the law

Are you agreeing or disagreeing that a person should be held responsible?
--
The maximum effective range of an excuse is ZERO meters!


scelli
Native New Yorker
Premium
join:1999-08-07
FLOT/FEBA
kudos:1
reply to peterboro
...and it first surfaced in case law in 1861 in Regina v. Sleep. This is common law we use here in Canada which come from England.

And a good law it is, peterboro.

--
The maximum effective range of an excuse is ZERO meters!


AVD
Respice, Adspice, Prospice
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1
reply to scelli
said by scelli:

said by AVD:

Ignorance that the check is a fraud =/= ignorance of the law

Are you agreeing or disagreeing that a person should be held responsible?

I'm just saying your position about ignorance of the law is not relevant.
--
* seek help if having trouble coping
--Standard disclaimers apply.--


scelli
Native New Yorker
Premium
join:1999-08-07
FLOT/FEBA
kudos:1

1 recommendation

said by AVD:

said by scelli:

said by AVD:

Ignorance that the check is a fraud =/= ignorance of the law

Are you agreeing or disagreeing that a person should be held responsible?

I'm just saying your position about ignorance of the law is not relevant.

Then I will defer to the more nuanced response offered by peterboro.

Either way you cut it: A person who knowingly/unknowingly breaks the law by cashing a check that proves to be fraudulent had better be able to explain the reasons for their actions. It's called being held accountable for one's own actions, a trait sadly lacking these days in a society where all too many individuals are devoid of such an understanding.
--
The maximum effective range of an excuse is ZERO meters!