Willful ignorance information

In law, willful ignorance is when a person seeks to avoid civil or criminal liability for a wrongful act by intentionally keeping themselves unaware of facts that would render them liable or implicated.^[1]^[2] In United States v. Jewell, the court held that proof of willful ignorance satisfied the requirement of knowledge as to criminal possession and importation of drugs.^[3]^: 225

The concept is also applied to situations in which people intentionally turn their attention away from an ethical problem that is believed to be important by those using the phrase (for instance, because the problem is too disturbing for people to want it dominating their thoughts, or from the knowledge that solving the problem would require extensive effort).

^ Sarch, Alexander (2019). Criminally Ignorant. Oxford University Press. p. 13. ISBN 978-0-19-005657-5. The English courts apparently were the first to adopt it in criminal law. Writing in 1954, Edwards observed that "[f]or well-nigh a hundred years, it has been clear from the authorities that a person who deliberately shuts his eyes to an obvious means of knowledge has sufficient mens rea for an offence based on such words as . . . 'knowingly.'" He noted that "[s]o far as can be discovered, the case of R. v. Sleep was the first occasion in which judicial approval was given to" the willful ignorance doctrine...
^ Marcus, Jonathan L. (1993). "Model Penal Code Section 2.02(7) and Willful Blindness". The Yale Law Journal. 102 (8): 2231–2257. doi:10.2307/796865. ISSN 0044-0094. JSTOR 796865 – via JSTOR. Willful blindness first appeared as a substitute for actual knowledge in English case law over a century ago. A judge in Regina v. Sleep ruled that an accused could not be convicted for possession of "naval stores" unless the jury found that he "knew that the goods were government stores or wilfully shut his eyes to the fact.
^ Criminal Law – Cases and Materials, 7th ed. 2012, Wolters Kluwer Law & Business; John Kaplan, Robert Weisberg, Guyora Binder, ISBN 978-1-4548-0698-1.

[1] Sarch, Alexander (2019). Criminally Ignorant. Oxford University Press. p. 13. ISBN 978-0-19-005657-5. The English courts apparently were the first to adopt it in criminal law. Writing in 1954, Edwards observed that "[f]or well-nigh a hundred years, it has been clear from the authorities that a person who deliberately shuts his eyes to an obvious means of knowledge has sufficient mens rea for an offence based on such words as . . . 'knowingly.'" He noted that "[s]o far as can be discovered, the case of R. v. Sleep was the first occasion in which judicial approval was given to" the willful ignorance doctrine...

[2] Marcus, Jonathan L. (1993). "Model Penal Code Section 2.02(7) and Willful Blindness". The Yale Law Journal. 102 (8): 2231–2257. doi:10.2307/796865. ISSN 0044-0094. JSTOR 796865 – via JSTOR. Willful blindness first appeared as a substitute for actual knowledge in English case law over a century ago. A judge in Regina v. Sleep ruled that an accused could not be convicted for possession of "naval stores" unless the jury found that he "knew that the goods were government stores or wilfully shut his eyes to the fact.

[CL-3] Criminal Law – Cases and Materials, 7th ed. 2012, Wolters Kluwer Law & Business; John Kaplan, Robert Weisberg, Guyora Binder, ISBN 978-1-4548-0698-1.

Willful ignorance information

and 25 Related for: Willful ignorance information

Willful ignorance

Vincible and invincible ignorance

Willful

Fredrik deBoer

Charlie Charlie challenge

The King of Oil

Willful violation

Wilful Blindness

Cognitive dissonance

Practical atheism

Fitra

Stupidity

Breaking wheel

Lee McIntyre

Ignorantia juris non excusat

World Hepatitis Day

2012 Benghazi attack

Simone Gold

My Dad the Bounty Hunter

Astroworld Festival crowd crush

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

The Audacity of Hope

Chicano

Jean Grae

Demarcation problem

Criminal law

Elements
Actus reus Mens rea Causation Concurrence
Scope of criminal liability
Accessory Accomplice Complicity Corporate Principal Vicarious
Severity of offense
Felony (or Indictable offense) Infraction (also called violation) Misdemeanor (or Summary offense)
Inchoate offenses
Attempt Conspiracy Incitement Solicitation
Offense against the person
Assassination Assault Battery Child abuse Criminal negligence Defamation Domestic violence False imprisonment Frameup Harassment Home invasion Homicide Human trafficking Intimidation Kidnapping Menacing Manslaughter (corporate) Mayhem Murder felony Negligent homicide Robbery Stalking Torture
Sexual offenses
Adultery Bigamy Child sexual abuse Cybersex trafficking Fornication Homosexuality Incest Indecent exposure Masturbation Obscenity Prostitution Rape Sex trafficking Sexual assault Sexual slavery Voyeurism
Crimes against property
Arson Arms trafficking Blackmail Bribery Burglary Embezzlement Extortion False pretenses Forgery Fraud Gambling Intellectual property violation Larceny Looting Payola Pickpocketing Possessing stolen property Robbery Smuggling Tax evasion Theft Trespass to land Vandalism, Mischief
Crimes against justice
Compounding Malfeasance in office Miscarriage of justice Misprision Obstruction Perjury Perverting the course of justice
Crimes against the public
Apostasy Begging Censorship violation Dueling Genocide Hostage-taking Illegal consumption (such as prohibition of drugs, alcohol, and smoking) Miscegenation Piracy Regicide Terrorism Usurpation War crimes
Crimes against animals
Cruelty to animals Poaching Wildlife smuggling Bestiality
Crimes against the state
Lèse-majesté Treason Espionage Secession Sedition Subversion
Defenses to liability
Actual innocence Automatism Consent Defense of property Diminished responsibility Duress Entrapment Ignorantia juris non excusat Infancy Insanity Justification Mistake (of law) Necessity Provocation Self-defense
Other common-law areas
Contracts Defenses Evidence Property Torts Wills, trusts and estates
Portals
Law
v t e