KOM4361 Communication Ethics

EXERCISE 2: LAWS VS ETHICS

a.) Enlisted below are three principles of Laws that are related to the conduct of
ethics. Briefly define, elaborate, and provide example for each of them:
i.) Ignorantia juris non excusat
ii.) Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit
iii.) Argumentum ab auctaritate fortissimum est in lege
1.0 Ignorantia juris non excusat

Ignorantia juris non excusat  or ignorantia legis neminem excusat 

is a Latin verse meaning "ignorance of the law does not excuse" or
"ignorance of the law excuses no one". It is a legal principle holding that a
person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that
law merely because he or she was unaware of its content. In the United
States, exceptions to this general rule are found in cases such as Lambert
v. California (knowledge of city ordinances) and Cheek v. United
States (willfulness requirement in U.S. federal tax crimes). European law
countries with a tradition of Roman law, on the other hand law the
expression nemo censetur ignorare legem meaning nobody is taught to
ignore the law.

The rationale of the doctrine is that if ignorance were an excuse, a

person charged with criminal offenses or a subject of a civil lawsuit would
merely claim that he or she is unaware of the law in question to
avoid liability, even though the person really does know what the law in
question is.

Therefore, the law imputes knowledge of all laws to all persons

within the jurisdiction no matter how briefly. Even though it would be
impossible, even for someone with substantial legal training, to be aware
of every law in operation in every aspect of a state's activities, this is the
price paid to ensure that willful blindness cannot become the basis
of pardon or mercy. As a results, it is well settled that persons engaged in
any undertakings outside what is common for a normal person, such as
running a nuclear power plant, will make themselves aware of the laws
necessary to engage in that undertaking.

The doctrine assumes that the law in question has been properly
published and distributed, for example, by being printed in a government
gazette, made available over the internet, or printed in volumes available
for sale to the public at affordable prices.
 For example, if you buy marijuana in Colorado, where it is legal for
recreational use, then drive over the border into Nebraska, you can still be
arrested, charged, and convicted of possession even if you didn’t know it
was a crime in Nebraska

2.0 Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit

Latin verse “semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit”,

means “the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays
charges.” This has been the accepted legal burden of proof in justice
systems around the world for centuries.

The burden of proof is the obligation to provide sufficient supporting

evidence for claims that you make. For example, if someone claims that
ghosts exist, then the burden of proof means that they need to provide
evidence that supports this. Or if a politician claims that a new policy will
lead to a positive outcome, then the politician has a burden of proof with
regard to this claim, meaning that they need to provide evidence that
supports it.

In civil law cases, the burden of proof requires a plaintiff to convince

a judge or jury of the plaintiff’s entitlement to the relief sought.  This means
that the plaintiff must prove each element of the claim, or cause of action,
in order to recover.  Burden of proof is the most important rule of evidence
in the trial of civil cases.  Generally, burden of proof is on the plaintiff to
show by a “preponderance of evidence” or “weight of evidence” that all the
facts necessary to win a judgment are probably true.

In a criminal trial, the prosecution has the burden of proof to

demonstrate that the defendant committed the specified crime beyond a
reasonable doubt. This is a higher burden of proof than the civil
“preponderance of evidence” standard.

There are no hard-and-fast standards leading the allocation of

the burden of proof in every situation.  Burden of proof is merely a
question of policy and fairness.
3.0 Argumentum ab auctaritate fortissimum est in lege

“Argument from authority is the most forceful (in law).”A maxim

meaning that arguments based on positive sources of authority or
precedents, or the opinions of respected legal authorities, are considered
the most persuasive kind of arguments.

Historically, opinion on the appeal to authority has been divided:

some hold that it can be a valid or at least defeasible argument some of
the time but fallacious other times, whereas others hold that it is
consistently weak or an outright fallacy.
REFERENCE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority