- Willful blindness
-
Criminal law Part of the common law series Element (criminal law) Actus reus · Mens rea
Causation · ConcurrenceScope of criminal liability Complicity · Corporate · Vicarious Inchoate offenses Attempt · Conspiracy · Solicitation Offence against the person Assault · Battery
False imprisonment · Kidnapping
Mayhem · Sexual assaultCrimes against property Arson · Blackmail · Burglary
Embezzlement · Extortion
False pretenses · Larceny
Possessing stolen property
Robbery · TheftCrimes against justice Compounding · Misprision
Obstruction · Perjury
Malfeasance in office
Perverting the course of justiceDefenses to liability Defense of self
Defence of property
Consent · Diminished responsibility
Duress · Entrapment
Ignorantia juris non excusat
Infancy · Insanity
Intoxication defense
Justification · Mistake (of law)
Necessity · Loss of Control (Provocation)Other common law areas Contracts · Evidence · Property
Torts · Wills, trusts and estatesPortals Criminal justice · Law Willful blindness (sometimes called ignorance of law, willful ignorance or contrived ignorance or Nelsonian knowledge) is a term used in law to when an individual seeks to avoid civil or criminal liability for a wrongful act by intentionally putting himself in a position where he will be unaware of facts which would render him liable.
For example, in a number of cases, persons transporting packages containing illegal drugs have asserted that they never asked what the contents of the packages were and so lacked the requisite intent to break the law.
Such defences 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.[citation needed]
A famous example of such a defence being denied occurred in In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2003), 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 defence to a claim of contributory infringement.
References
- Luban, Contrived Ignorance, (1999) Vol. 87 Georgetown Law Journal, 957.
See also
- Recklessness (law)
- Willful violation
- Vincible ignorance
- Requiem for a Species
- Willful Blindness (book)
Categories:
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.