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).
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 In a number of cases in the United States of America, persons transporting packages containing illegal drugs have asserted that they never asked or were never told what the contents of the packages were and so lacked the requisite intent to break the law. Such defenses have not succeeded, as courts have been quick to determine that the defendantshould have known what was in the package and exercised criminal recklessness by failing to find out the package's contents.[citation needed] Notably, this rule has only ever been applied to independent couriers, and has never been used to hold larger services that qualify as common carriers (e.g., FedEx, United Parcel Service, or the U.S. Postal Service) liable for the contents of packages they deliver.
A famous example of such a defense being denied occurred in In re Aimster Copyright Litigation,[4] in which the defendants argued that the file-swapping technology was designed in such a way that they had no way of monitoring the content of swapped files. They suggested that their inability to monitor the activities of users meant that they could not be contributing to copyright infringement by the users. The court held that this was willful blindness on the defendant's part and would not constitute a defense to a claim of contributory infringement.
^Sarch, Alexander (2019). Criminally Ignorant. Oxford University Press. p. 13. ISBN978-0-19-005657-5. 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.
willful, ignorance, this, article, multiple, issues, please, help, improve, discuss, these, issues, talk, page, learn, when, remove, these, template, messages, this, article, needs, additional, citations, verification, please, help, improve, this, article, add. This article has multiple issues Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page Learn how and when to remove these template messages This article needs additional citations for verification Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources Unsourced material may be challenged and removed Find sources Willful ignorance news newspapers books scholar JSTOR March 2016 Learn how and when to remove this template message The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject You may improve this article discuss the issue on the talk page or create a new article as appropriate March 2016 Learn how and when to remove this template message Learn how and when to remove this template message 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 Contents 1 Terminology 2 Precedent in the United States 3 See also 4 References 5 External linksTerminology editWillful ignorance is sometimes called willful blindness contrived ignorance conscious avoidance intentional ignorance or Nelsonian knowledge The jury instruction for willful blindness is sometimes called the ostrich instruction Precedent in the United States editIn 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 In a number of cases in the United States of America persons transporting packages containing illegal drugs have asserted that they never asked or were never told what the contents of the packages were and so lacked the requisite intent to break the law Such defenses have not succeeded as courts have been quick to determine that the defendant should have known what was in the package and exercised criminal recklessness by failing to find out the package s contents citation needed Notably this rule has only ever been applied to independent couriers and has never been used to hold larger services that qualify as common carriers e g FedEx United Parcel Service or the U S Postal Service liable for the contents of packages they deliver A famous example of such a defense being denied occurred in In re Aimster Copyright Litigation 4 in which the defendants argued that the file swapping technology was designed in such a way that they had no way of monitoring the content of swapped files They suggested that their inability to monitor the activities of users meant that they could not be contributing to copyright infringement by the users The court held that this was willful blindness on the defendant s part and would not constitute a defense to a claim of contributory infringement See also editRecklessness law Vincible ignorance Willful Blindness book Willful violation Plausible deniability Turning a blind eye Ignorance of the lawReferences edit 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 a b Criminal Law Cases and Materials 7th ed 2012 Wolters Kluwer Law amp Business John Kaplan Robert Weisberg Guyora Binder ISBN 978 1 4548 0698 1 334 F 3d 643 7th Cir 2003 Luban David Contrived Ignorance 1999 Vol 87 Georgetown Law Journal 957 External links editWillful blindness per the IRS IRM Manual Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Willful ignorance amp oldid 1197549346, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
