CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
If lawyers (and even judges) can frequently disagree about how the law should be interpreted, then how can the average person be expected to know objectively what is or is not against the law?
If it can be reasonably argued in good faith that the defendant was unaware what they did was illegal, then it should certainly be a defence, because how can you punish someone for a rule they didn't know about? At the very least it should be considered mitigating circumstances and warrant a drastic reduction in sentence.
how can the average person be expected to know objectively what the law is
Hello:
If you're talking about the ordinary guy on the street, well.... He COULD read the law. Most people don't.. For example, when your bank sends you that long thing printed in teeny tiny letters on, what looks like a receipt. And, it asks you to check a box saying that you read it. So, you check the box, because you don't wanna be bothered with the bank, and who can read that damn thing anyway.. You know, THAT thing??
Well, some people read it, and THEY'RE the ones who know the law.. Most people don't.
In the United States it is an accepted legal standard that ignorance of the law is no defence.
If such a principle was allowed to creep into the legal system, (and in this weird world of wokes, it could) clever lawyers would claim ignorance on behalf of their clients to avoid the judicial processes being able to proceed in accordance with the fair implementation of justice.
In the United States it is an accepted legal standard that ignorance of the law is no defence.
Thanks mate. I was aware of course, but I decided against arguing with our resident idiot because he never listens anyway.
lawyers would claim ignorance on behalf of their clients to avoid the judicial processes
No doubt, but exactly the same thing happens with existing methods of defence (for example, insanity) and so I can't see that it makes much difference. There will unequivocally be those who make disingenuous claims of ignorance, but in my opinion it should be the responsibility of the jury to differentiate those from the genuine.
I think the state ultimately has a responsibility to make sure people are aware of what the law is. If it is going to enforce certain rules on its citizens then it also has an obligation to make sure its citizens are aware of the rules which are being enforced.
I was aware of course.. I think the state ultimately has a responsibility to make sure people are aware of what the law is.
Hello hater:
DUDE!
What more can the state do besides PUBLISHING the laws in a BOOK, written in ENGLISH???
You're aware, huh?? You're AWARE??? If you were aware, I wouldn't have to educate you every time you post. You're the most UNAWARE motherfucker I've ever had the displeasure to debate with.
What more can the state do besides PUBLISHING the laws in a BOOK, written in ENGLISH???
Well, for starters it could make sure everybody is given a copy of that book. Secondly, it could make sure the language used is so unambiguous that it can't be misinterpreted. Thirdly, it could periodically test people to ensure they are aware of what the law is.
As per usual, you are being aggressive and stupid. You've simply ignored my previous point that even judges disagree about the meaning of much existing legislation. If judges -- who are experts on the law -- disagree about the meaning of certain laws, then why are you pretending there's nothing more the government can do to make the law clearer?
I'll answer that for you, shall I? It's because you're an aggressive, stupid little dickhead trying to cause an argument for no reason.
Just, how in the fuck would the state MAKE SURE everybody is given a copy?? Do you know just how fucking STUPID that is??
They just spent $1.7 trillion on a bill none of them read, so they could easily print us each a copy and pass them out at a public place. What, a billion dollars to get us a copy is too much? Get the fuck outta here.
Just, how in the fuck would the state MAKE SURE everybody is given a copy??
How about the postal service you retarded little moron? You're seriously sitting there telling me the government lacks the ability to send communications to its citizens and then, to top it off, you're saying it's stupid to believe otherwise. You're so retarded I find it offensive reading your posts.
So, when the law is amended, the government should send out 300 million updates?
Oh Holy Christ Excon, you are literally the most stupid human being I have ever encountered in my entire natural life. We live in the DIGITAL AGE. The government can use the postal service to send independent login details to each citizen, who can then login to a host server and retrieve the information digitally.
This is going to really shock you, but if people enter an email address or a mobile number onto the government website, then GUESS WHAT? They can get UPDATES!!! Science fiction, right? Clearly I'm "stupid" for believing such a thing could be possible. It's right up there with time travel!!!
The government already sends out tens of millions of letters per year. If you're unaware of that fact then it's because you're fucking stupid.
Stop writing stuff. You're a moron and the fact that you don't understand it just makes you annoying. When the government changed the law because of Covid, they managed to get the message out to people, so your apparent belief that the government is powerless to inform people about changes to the law is contradicted by both fact and logic.
Secondly, it could make sure the language used is so unambiguous that it can't be misinterpreted.
Hello aware man:
It DOES!!! 99% of the Constitution is about how the government is organized..
In terms of your concern, the ONLY laws/rights you need to know about are contained in the 1st 10 Amendments to the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights..
They're SHORT, easy to understand, and don't use any big words.. They tell you EVERYTHING you need to know about your interactions with government.
