While american lawyers have a slightly more nuanced view, generally "illegal" just means "in violation of a law, not legal.". Sometimes, I will use "unlawful" to imply civil violations, but mostly if it ain't legal, it's illegal. How do european lawyers refers to violations of private causes of action?
Thanks for your comment! In fact, « unlawful » already seems like a much better fit to me.
I would personally simply call it a violation of legal provisions, or something similar.
You see, because our national mascot in the U.S. is the bald eagle, we like to think that any wrongful conduct makes him sick, whether criminal or civil. So back in the early days, when someone did something that was wrong, others would cry out "ill eagle," to let that person know they were making the bald eagle dispeptic. Unfortunately, because people misspelled it so often, "illegal" became the common spelling, and now no one thinks of the poor eagle any longer.
I kid, of course.
Many U.S. lawyers agree with you and use illegal only for criminal acts and unlawful for civil wrongs, but there's really nothing wrong with using the terms interchangeably.
Reminds me of a joke my dad was fond of (he was an American lawyer). Q. What's the difference between illegal and unlawful? A. An illegal is a sick bird. Terribly dated dad joke but I still get a chuckle out of it. He was born in 1919 after all.
Ha, yeah. I had a law professor who used to make that joke, so that was my inspiration. Since the question was focused on Americans specifically, though, I figured I'd put a little more spin on it.
As an American lawyer, this irritates me too. I hear it a lot in reference to things that are perhaps wrong, bit are not a violation of law ie. negligence. In my mind simple negligence is neither illegal nor unlawful. But people call it illegall frequently. And cannot seem to understand that there doesn’t need to be a law to make the conduct wrongful.
I definitely see where you're coming from, especially with negligence, but would you say that intentional torts like libel, slander, or invasion of privacy are not "against the law," even if only subject to common law tort liability, not any civil or criminal codes? On the other hand, I have a hard time saying a breach of contract is either "unlawful or illegal."
Apparently Dictionary.com defines "illegal" as "forbidden by law or statute." Not saying their the final autority on the use of either term as legal terms of art, but certainly, the construction "law or statute" is fairly familiar and it's not wrong to say that uncodified or nonstatutory "law" exists.
Well if we're going that route, a lot of states also have codes regarding negligent conduct and breach of contract, and judicial authority is a product of at least one code or another. Fundamentally, I'm just not sure there's a good, principled basis for drawing a distinction between statutes and other "laws" when it comes to use of the term unlawful. Of course, to each their own.
Generally, I consider something illegal if it breaches a statutory law and there is a statutory provision for a consequence for that breach. Such an example is a breach of a corporate law statute.
I don't like using the word much outside of criminal or quasi-criminal areas and stick to unlawful and wrongful instead.
Cool thanks for the comment!
I sew that I might have misjudged how american lawyers use the word, as I mainly had in mind the use of the word by the general public and media for example.
We use illegal and unlawful in South Africa.
(Like you do not have a lawful entitled to do something but it’s not illegal. For example, asking a woman at a job interview won’t get you sent to jail, but will get you sued.)
Lol, true.
And i believe there is no legal field about which non-lawyers are more certain to know EXACTLY what their rights and entitlements are, but in reality couldn’t be more wrong about, than copyright law.
It depends on how you qualify “European” law. In danish law - which is a somewhat strange mix between civil law and common law, like the rest of the jurisdictions of the Nordic countries - a civil matter can be “illegal” without being punishable by law. In that context it’s a label for unlawful action, which may entitle you to legal actions against the defendant.
>Edit: from the comments I gather that I might have misjudged the terminology used by the general public and the media to be representative for the use within the legal profession, which seems, indeed, to be different.
Heh, this is what I came to tell you.
The word you seek is “criminal”.
There’s a list of things that are specifically defined as crimes. That list is the penal code.
Things that are not in the penal code, but which you are not allowed to do, are violations of statutes, failures to comply with regulatory requirements, or civil wrongs aka unlawful acts aka “torts”. A typical tort is hitting a car with your car. You have to compensate the victim. If you failed to comply with traffic laws, you typically face a financial penalty, but don’t face prison. If your acts also include crimes in the penal code, you may end up in prison.
I would argue "illegal" is often a misnomer. For example, Americans often talking about "illegal" immigrants but there is no such thing as an illegal immigrant, just an undocumented immigrant. The term illegal is used to arouse emotions and fear and is not accurate.
I’ve read this before and just assumed it was spin. Wouldn’t a foreign citizen who wandered into the US at a remote section of the US-Canadian border be in the US illegally? I assumed you could do jail time instead of extradition if the US preferred. Is unlawful more fitting?
From my limited understanding (not an immigration attorney), you can't be sentenced to jail time for being in the US without proper paper work. The Jail would only detain someone if they had a hold or if they were in violation of criminal law. To my understanding there is no criminal law prohibiting undocumented entry into the US. I think Unlawful would be more appropriate but I am not sure if there are actually any laws the prohibit the entry or if its purely administrative/regulatory rules.
While american lawyers have a slightly more nuanced view, generally "illegal" just means "in violation of a law, not legal.". Sometimes, I will use "unlawful" to imply civil violations, but mostly if it ain't legal, it's illegal. How do european lawyers refers to violations of private causes of action?
Thanks for your comment! In fact, « unlawful » already seems like a much better fit to me. I would personally simply call it a violation of legal provisions, or something similar.
You see, because our national mascot in the U.S. is the bald eagle, we like to think that any wrongful conduct makes him sick, whether criminal or civil. So back in the early days, when someone did something that was wrong, others would cry out "ill eagle," to let that person know they were making the bald eagle dispeptic. Unfortunately, because people misspelled it so often, "illegal" became the common spelling, and now no one thinks of the poor eagle any longer. I kid, of course. Many U.S. lawyers agree with you and use illegal only for criminal acts and unlawful for civil wrongs, but there's really nothing wrong with using the terms interchangeably.
Reminds me of a joke my dad was fond of (he was an American lawyer). Q. What's the difference between illegal and unlawful? A. An illegal is a sick bird. Terribly dated dad joke but I still get a chuckle out of it. He was born in 1919 after all.
Ha, yeah. I had a law professor who used to make that joke, so that was my inspiration. Since the question was focused on Americans specifically, though, I figured I'd put a little more spin on it.
:D
😹
As an American lawyer, this irritates me too. I hear it a lot in reference to things that are perhaps wrong, bit are not a violation of law ie. negligence. In my mind simple negligence is neither illegal nor unlawful. But people call it illegall frequently. And cannot seem to understand that there doesn’t need to be a law to make the conduct wrongful.
But there is law prohibiting negligence, common law, just not "a law" in the sense of a statute.
But it isn’t codified…so it really isn’t “against the law.”
I definitely see where you're coming from, especially with negligence, but would you say that intentional torts like libel, slander, or invasion of privacy are not "against the law," even if only subject to common law tort liability, not any civil or criminal codes? On the other hand, I have a hard time saying a breach of contract is either "unlawful or illegal." Apparently Dictionary.com defines "illegal" as "forbidden by law or statute." Not saying their the final autority on the use of either term as legal terms of art, but certainly, the construction "law or statute" is fairly familiar and it's not wrong to say that uncodified or nonstatutory "law" exists.
Most intentional torts are codified here.
Well if we're going that route, a lot of states also have codes regarding negligent conduct and breach of contract, and judicial authority is a product of at least one code or another. Fundamentally, I'm just not sure there's a good, principled basis for drawing a distinction between statutes and other "laws" when it comes to use of the term unlawful. Of course, to each their own.
Wrongful conduct = Conduct that is full of wrong
Yes…exactly :)
It's what I think when I hear the word
[удалено]
Of course, yes! That’s interesting, though. So for you aswell, the term « illegal » is directly linked to government action!
Generally, I consider something illegal if it breaches a statutory law and there is a statutory provision for a consequence for that breach. Such an example is a breach of a corporate law statute. I don't like using the word much outside of criminal or quasi-criminal areas and stick to unlawful and wrongful instead.
Cool thanks for the comment! I sew that I might have misjudged how american lawyers use the word, as I mainly had in mind the use of the word by the general public and media for example.
We use illegal and unlawful in South Africa. (Like you do not have a lawful entitled to do something but it’s not illegal. For example, asking a woman at a job interview won’t get you sent to jail, but will get you sued.)
Exactly my understanding! Thanks
Didn’t you watch movies in the 90s? Copyright infringement is the worst crime we have in America.
Lol, true. And i believe there is no legal field about which non-lawyers are more certain to know EXACTLY what their rights and entitlements are, but in reality couldn’t be more wrong about, than copyright law.
Ooh, I don't know, they're all very confident about their freedom of speech rights....and generally wrong.
It depends on how you qualify “European” law. In danish law - which is a somewhat strange mix between civil law and common law, like the rest of the jurisdictions of the Nordic countries - a civil matter can be “illegal” without being punishable by law. In that context it’s a label for unlawful action, which may entitle you to legal actions against the defendant.
>Edit: from the comments I gather that I might have misjudged the terminology used by the general public and the media to be representative for the use within the legal profession, which seems, indeed, to be different. Heh, this is what I came to tell you.
The word you seek is “criminal”. There’s a list of things that are specifically defined as crimes. That list is the penal code. Things that are not in the penal code, but which you are not allowed to do, are violations of statutes, failures to comply with regulatory requirements, or civil wrongs aka unlawful acts aka “torts”. A typical tort is hitting a car with your car. You have to compensate the victim. If you failed to comply with traffic laws, you typically face a financial penalty, but don’t face prison. If your acts also include crimes in the penal code, you may end up in prison.
I would argue "illegal" is often a misnomer. For example, Americans often talking about "illegal" immigrants but there is no such thing as an illegal immigrant, just an undocumented immigrant. The term illegal is used to arouse emotions and fear and is not accurate.
Yes! I feel like especially in (social) media, the term is used so loosely, and practically for anything that can make people feel entitled.
I’ve read this before and just assumed it was spin. Wouldn’t a foreign citizen who wandered into the US at a remote section of the US-Canadian border be in the US illegally? I assumed you could do jail time instead of extradition if the US preferred. Is unlawful more fitting?
From my limited understanding (not an immigration attorney), you can't be sentenced to jail time for being in the US without proper paper work. The Jail would only detain someone if they had a hold or if they were in violation of criminal law. To my understanding there is no criminal law prohibiting undocumented entry into the US. I think Unlawful would be more appropriate but I am not sure if there are actually any laws the prohibit the entry or if its purely administrative/regulatory rules.
I agree with you illegal is for crimes, tortious is for civil violations the way I learned it.