is it all places that have high enforcement that have signs? is the absence of signs a ground to avoid arrest (explain with examples)

 Not all places with high enforcement of cleanliness laws have signs explicitly stating the rules against littering or other forms of environmental pollution. In many jurisdictions, the absence of signs does not exempt someone from being penalized for violating the law.

High Enforcement Without Signs:

In places with stringent cleanliness and environmental laws, such as in certain parts of Europe or North America, enforcement may be vigorous even without visible signs. For instance:

• Singapore: Known for its strict cleanliness laws, Singapore imposes heavy fines for littering, even in areas where there might not be any visible signs. The law itself is well-publicized, and residents and visitors are expected to know and follow the rules.

• Germany: In many German cities, there may not be a sign at every corner, but littering is strongly discouraged and can result in fines. Public awareness and cultural norms often play a significant role in adherence to these rules.

Absence of Signs and Legal Responsibility:

The absence of signs does not usually provide a legal defense against penalties for littering. Most legal systems operate on the principle that ignorance of the law is not an excuse. For example:

• United States: In many U.S. cities, littering is illegal whether or not there are signs. Cities like New York or San Francisco have hefty fines for littering, and enforcement officers can issue tickets even if there isn't a sign nearby. The general expectation is that people should be aware of local laws.

• United Kingdom: Littering laws are enforced across the UK, and local councils often issue fines even in the absence of explicit signage. In cities like London, enforcement officers are known to issue penalties based on the law rather than the presence of signs.

Examples and Exceptions:

While signs are helpful in reminding the public of specific rules, they are not a legal necessity in most jurisdictions. An example:

• Japan: In many Japanese cities, littering is discouraged through cultural norms and public education rather than extensive signage. The enforcement of these norms is strong, and penalties can be imposed without explicit signs warning against littering.

However, in some specific contexts, such as certain private properties or in areas with ambiguous rules (like where different municipalities meet), the absence of signs might be taken into account during enforcement, particularly if the law is not well-known. But this is more the exception than the rule.

Conclusion:

In summary, the absence of signs is generally not a valid reason to avoid penalties for littering or similar offenses in areas with high enforcement. People are expected to be aware of and comply with local laws, and enforcement authorities typically uphold this principle.