Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbneb.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbscc!cbneb!adm
From: adm@cbneb.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.legal
Subject: Ignorance of the law - (nf)
Message-ID: <944@cbneb.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 25-Jun-84 16:21:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbneb.944
Posted: Mon Jun 25 16:21:14 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 28-Jun-84 01:56:33 EDT
Sender: adm@cbneb.UUCP
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus, OHIO
Lines: 20

#N:cbnap:17000001:000:941
cbnap!whp    Jun 25 16:06:00 1984

All the information I have been reading about the storage capacity
of the human brain set me to wondering.  If the storage capcity is
less then ~30 gigabits, and if the total amount of relevant law
(``relevant'' meaning all applicable federal, state, and local laws)
exceeds this number, then would ignorance of some specific law be
an acceptable defence, on the grounds that fore-knowledge of that
law was impossible?   It seems to me that it isn't right to pass
a law (or not allow some defence) impossible of fulfillment.
With a system of precedent law, it seems more than likely that
the limit has already been passed in the USA.

As an example, suppose you go for a car trip to another state.
In that state is is illegal to cross a single solid divider line, but
it is legal to do so in you home state.  You cross the line to pass,
and receive a citation.  In this case, if I were a judge, I think I
would allow a defence of ignorance.