Segev Type 1
I had to look what is a famous maxim. it’s a simple and memorable quote that is used as a literary device. Segev talks about how ignorance or mistake of law is no excuse. In his paper, he helps us answer our module question. The argument is that ignorance or mistake of law could be justified in an important respect. The relationship between justification and excuse is complex and comes into to question. Both are a matter of degree. The main distinction is that justification is whether actions are within the proper moral or legal guidelines. Excuses differ because they are concerned with responsibility over actions and whether those people preformed wrongful actions and whether they deserve blame. Segev’s thesis works with the possibility that ignorance to certain normative rules are never warranted. Segev’s explains further by explaining how it is never justifiable for a person to inflict harm on another for trivial reasons. The main category in this article is the “ignorance or mistake of law due to reliance on the guidance of public officeholders or the advice of private lawyers” (37). Normative rules have meaning and reflect normative standards. The relationship between correctness and authority is complex as well because courts have the power to enforce laws, but then also make laws for the future. From my understanding of what I’ve learned about criminal law is that a justification is a claim that the actions of the individual should be considered legal rather than illegal because of its support that’s rooted in societal norms. An excuse rater is mainly concerned with the individual. Overall, excuses consist of whether or not one is insane of incompetent at time of incident. These defenses are used to show that an individual should not be held liable for a certain event. Segev says that justifying your behavior with the claim that you were mistaken about the law is reason to criminalize your behavior. Even though the distinction between excuses and justification are complex, people should be held accountable even though they were mistaken of the law. This was a very hard reading for me to figure out, but I’m understanding that laws would have no meaning and hold no water if an answer around them was to plead ignorance. Segev says that ignorance of law is not an excuse, but is a justification!