"Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it" is an invalid claim because the law hasn't been modified correctly to reflect changes in America. It is no fault of a law breaker if they have no idea they are violating a 200 year old law with no valid point or a law just inacted. The judicial system was created to serve the people, but instead it has become a social watchdog bent on jailing people even if they have no knowledge that what they are doing is wrong or if their action violates no common understood ethic.

The justice system in America was created over two hundred years ago with many laws created with the idea of short term use as temporant solutions. Those laws often remain inact even though they serve no purpose, or unmodified so they do not reflect new technology or accepted belies. Often laws themselves are created out of ignorance and fear, though they laws may be constitutional (Alien and Sedition Acts). The Scopes-Monkey trial is a great example, because a teacher was brought to trial because he taught evolution. The law forbid the teaching of evolution because of the fear it would take children away from Christianity (and towards the truth). Laws are often created out of ignorance or misconceptions, and in turn, unfairly penalize unknowing persons.

The law often fails to keep up with modern times. Computers, automobiles, and weapons have all created large problems for law making officials. Often the law makers have little to no understanding or knowledge of the new technology, and so they create unfair or unrealistic laws. Should a person be penalized just for doing something they typically do and is now outlawwed because of ignorance in Washington?

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it" can easily be refuted because laws are often created out of ignorance. One should not be jailed because they violate a law with no modern day purpose or a law created in haste to solve a modern-age dillema. When the law reflects the actual will of the people, instead of the beliefs and fears of 500 politicians and 15000 lobbyists, then this claim will be valid.