[blml] Ignorantia juris non excusat

[Wayne Burrows]

On 21/07/07, Eric Landau <ehaa at starpower.net> wrote:
> On Jul 20, 2007, at 4:35 AM, Nigel wrote:
>
> > Neither in BLML nor at the table, have I accused players of cheating.
> > For example, I rate Herman de Wael, Sven Pran, and Alain GOttcheiner
> > as upright players who honestly delude themselves about the law on
> > psychs.
> >
> > They are convinced that they are right so they believe that an uppity
> > director would be wrong if, after investigation and consultation, he
> > ruled that they had a CPU.
> >
> > As a practical matter, however, after such a ruling, it   would seem
> > to be stupid and masochistic to immediately repeat the (disputed)
> > infraction, knowing that it would attract further adverse rulings,
> > with escalating penalties.
> >
> > Where is the contradiction, Eric?
> >
> > Of course, I would respect them even more, if when ruled against, they
> > kept appealing to higher and higher authorities.
>
> It doesn't matter how convinced you are that you are acting within
> the law; if you are charged with an offense, given a hearing, and
> found to have committed an infraction, then you have only two ethical
> actions: accept the decision or appeal it.  If you accept the
> decision, as you must absent a successful appeal, you do not repeat
> the infraction.  Stupid or not, masochistic or not, abjuring it only
> temporarily until the charge, hearing and finding have been forgotten
> and you can once again get away with it does not occur out of honest
> ignorance or delusion (short of psychosis), but requires intention.
>

I disagree with your limited ethical options.  In an ideal world you
may be right.  However if an appeal requires a cost (monetary, time or
otherwise) then you may be unable or unwilling to appeal and it is not
an ethical matter.

We have a proliferation of regulations that discourage appeals.  Some
of which particularly discourage appeals from the poor - e.g. it costs
$100 to lodge an appeal.  The laws of bridge give us a right to appeal
and a further right to appeal to the national association.  These
rights should be equally and freely available to all.

Wayne