Originally Posted by
RichardKenner
I'm not sure what "properly" means, but the above is false in terms of the law as it's applied in the US. You only need to have intent to do the thing that's against the law; you need not know that it's against the law. It's illegal to juggle without a license in Hood River, OR. If some visitor to the city juggles, they've violated that law as long as they intended to juggle. The fact that they didn't know it was illegal (friends of mine who grew up there know it), is irrelevant.
I use the word "properly" because I know for a fact that there are plenty of cases where someone is found guilty of a crime improperly.
The intent to break a law is against the law so that separation is moot.
I thought I was clear that my statement pertained to
criminal matters, the juggling without a license law you referred to is most likely a civil ordnance or law, similar to most traffic laws.
As Holmes wrote in The Common Law,
"A law which punished conduct which would not be blameworthy in the average member of the community would be too severe for that community to bear."
Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225 (1957) upholds this principle.
Please note I am NOT saying that you can use as an excuse that you did not know a
particular statute existed.