Ignorance of the law is no excuse (where common sense is not concerned)

CON makes some good arguments and I am prepared to address each of them. 1) You have officially placed a definition on "common sense" in regards to your argument: you say that "normal" is a white middle-class Christian individual, and it is by this person's values that common sense should be defined. In stating this you have hurt your own argument, because any individual who lives in the US who is not within the above definition is automatically not a part of "society" as you put it, and therefore cannot be fairly expected to follow the common sense norm. For instance, a legal US citizen who came to this country as a young child from the middle east, is bilingual in Arabic and English, and strongly practices Islam would be completely outside of your definition of a "normal" US citizen. There must be some obvious and official standard by which citizens can be expected to behave and then be punished for breaking, and "common sense" is neither of these. In many ways you are making a circular argument: you are basically asserting that "common sense" should replace law, but law was created specifically because common sense has failed. Expecting people to "mentally absorb" society's expectations without some kind of official source to read about them, and without a say in what those expectations are, is more unfair than the argument we are debating! Laws are discussed, debated, researched, and voted on before they are officially recorded in a public legal document that is open to the entire country to access and read at any time. Where are the "laws" of common sense written? How can CON fairly expect individuals to know what common sense is when there is absolutely no formal standard to base it off of and then turn around and argue that expecting people to know the laws of the country they live in is unfair? You stated that I failed to clarify that we live in a society with our own definition of common sense, however I must disagree. I stated that common sense was "socially relative." I specifically referred to society as a defining factor, but my point was that society's definition is fluid and arbitrary and I gave examples of such. Laws are created to protect society from damage, whereas common sense is simply a changing amalgamation of society's values. Since the US gives its citizens freedom to choose their values it cannot be expected for any citizen to follow any kind of "common sense" no matter how you define it, they have the right to believe whatever they want! 2) If common sense does not exist in the mind then where does it exist? You scoff at my assertion that it does and yet you offer no alternative. You admit that common sense is related to values, but then fail to recognize that values exist in the mind. You seem to be confusing the law with values: the law is not written to match society's values, but it is written to protect society from damage. In California it is currently illegal to smoke Marijuana for personal use, and yet there are many who consider it a "safe product" akin to smoking or drinking. The law right now does not match the values of those citizens. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the law cannot uphold values, I am simply pointing out that this isn't the purpose of it. 3) While I believe there is merit behind my con artist argument, it is far from the most important point in this debate and therefore I shall concede that issue to your side. 4) You say something very peculiar in your fourth point: "If this individual was in fact a member, he would not be ignorant of the law." You have completely argued against yourself here and have stated my point. I am saying that as a member of a governed society citizens should be expected to know the laws by which they live and you have agreed with me! Your final point is that knowledge of wrong creates wrong, and this is a flawed premise. Many serial killers see no evil in their acts and in fact find comfort and pleasure in them. By your logic they are not doing wrong because they don't realize it. As I said before, crime damages society regardless of whether or not the person knows it. Final Note: I made two points in my first argument that you failed to address in rebuttal. The first was how you expected the police force and the courts to handle the burden of cognizance. How can justice officials possibly prove that a person does or does not know a law? Are we to simply take every lawbreaker's word that they didn't know what they were doing? Second, I questioned how you expect justice to be carried out: when a law is broken damage has been done to society in some form, and your argument asserts that the criminal should not repay society for this damage simply because he/she was not aware of it. Fairness is when individuals take responsibility for their actions and don't use ignorance as an excuse. Since you did not address these two points I will assume that you concede them to my side.