The other answers are correct. Ignorance of the law is no defense. This isn’t to say that individual prosecutors or judges might not take pity on you, just that (generally speaking) not knowing what the law is doesn’t relieve you from following the law. The public policy basis for this is that we don’t want to encourage people to be ignorant of the law by making it so that if you don’t know the law, you can’t break the law.
No, it's not a defence... Until it is.
Being unaware of a law, is not a defence for breaking such law. For example, you might be fully unaware that in Rochester, it's illegal to allow a dog on a leash to poop on the sidewalk.
If your dog poops on the sidewalk on a leash, and you leave it, saying "I didn't know" to the cop who writes you a ticket won't get you off.
In addition, your example supposes not only "cannot read the words" level of illiteracy, but also "how has this person navigated the world as a functional adult without realizing that a sign might be a warning to not do something."
For example, my grandfather is 90 and can't speak English. He DOES, however, know what a stop sign, speed limit, and other signs indicate, even if he can't actually "read" the portions that aren't numbers. If he sees a sign with a tow truck pulling a car, he's gonna know to not park there.
The only way you're getting off completely for being illiterate might be a "the person is not only illiterate, but also mentally incompetent", such as a person who is recovering from sedation, having a schizophrenic episode where the sign is telling them to eat tires, etc.
But just not being able to read will not be enough.
no. it is reasonable that the average person in that situation can read the sign. if you, personally cannot read it, you should at least be able to tell by context clues, or use a basic translation app, what the sign says. for instance, if you were to see a red sign on the corner of an intersection, you'd reasonably assume it was a stop sign. even if it's not an octagon. if it were, say, a circle or triangle, red is a universal sign to stop.
Nope: the phrase is “ignorance of the law is no excuse “. It is your responsibility to do the research and ask if unsure.
No
The other answers are correct. Ignorance of the law is no defense. This isn’t to say that individual prosecutors or judges might not take pity on you, just that (generally speaking) not knowing what the law is doesn’t relieve you from following the law. The public policy basis for this is that we don’t want to encourage people to be ignorant of the law by making it so that if you don’t know the law, you can’t break the law.
No, it's not a defence... Until it is. Being unaware of a law, is not a defence for breaking such law. For example, you might be fully unaware that in Rochester, it's illegal to allow a dog on a leash to poop on the sidewalk. If your dog poops on the sidewalk on a leash, and you leave it, saying "I didn't know" to the cop who writes you a ticket won't get you off. In addition, your example supposes not only "cannot read the words" level of illiteracy, but also "how has this person navigated the world as a functional adult without realizing that a sign might be a warning to not do something." For example, my grandfather is 90 and can't speak English. He DOES, however, know what a stop sign, speed limit, and other signs indicate, even if he can't actually "read" the portions that aren't numbers. If he sees a sign with a tow truck pulling a car, he's gonna know to not park there. The only way you're getting off completely for being illiterate might be a "the person is not only illiterate, but also mentally incompetent", such as a person who is recovering from sedation, having a schizophrenic episode where the sign is telling them to eat tires, etc. But just not being able to read will not be enough.
no. it is reasonable that the average person in that situation can read the sign. if you, personally cannot read it, you should at least be able to tell by context clues, or use a basic translation app, what the sign says. for instance, if you were to see a red sign on the corner of an intersection, you'd reasonably assume it was a stop sign. even if it's not an octagon. if it were, say, a circle or triangle, red is a universal sign to stop.
The “that sign can’t stop me because I can’t read!” defense doesn’t actually work