Problem
Failure of proof "defenses" such as ignorance and mistake, are an individual's simplest defense in a criminal prosecution, and claim that the prosecution has not or cannot prove an element of the offense. Mistake defenses in which defendants usually present enough evidence to raise a reasonable doubt that the prosecution has proved the mens rea required for criminal liability. Ignorance or mistake of law is the presumption that the defendants knew the law they were breaking. In our system, this defense is hardly ever used, except for perhaps extremely obscure laws. Please read the following article and answer the questions that follow.
"Ignorance of the Law in No Excuse, But It Is Reality".
a) Is the argument in the article a legitimate one? Should it be reasonable to excuse someone from breaking a law they were ignorant of?
b) What if you were accused of a crime that you did not know was a crime? How would you defend yourself? Mistake of fact? Failure-of-proof? How would the level of culpability for the crime you committed affect your type of defense?