http://www.forbes.com/...m-going-to-jail-for-what/

I'm not sure I even need to say anything about this, but I think the US Supreme Court once ruled that prosecutors had a duty to choose when to and when not to prosecute cases. I sure wish some of the ******** (language edited before posting) prosecutors that represent the United States would consent to better management of tax-payer money. We don't need to send people to jail for honest mistakes; we don't even need to prosecute them. Simply educating people about certain laws should be sufficient.

If the US Federal Government is not violating the letter of the US Consitution, they are certainly violating the spirit of it. These prosecutions are examples where the US government is becoming the agent of tyranny it was designed to replace.

Here's a simple solution. Let's make a new federal law: All federal criminal prosecutions of misdemeanor crimes should require "mens rea" (guilty mind) be proven.

Some of those are stupid, sure, but not all; like the MAPLE thing; if they decide they don't want imitation maple syrup being advertised and sold as maple syrup, what's wrong with that? and if you break that law, what's wrong with being punished?

trying to pass off an imitation as the real thing seems like something the govt actually should be involved in....

So this story lists four crimes, in all cases except one the person was let off with a fine for doing something illegal (if I accidentally crash into your car, I should still be responsible for it, even if it is an accident) and in the final one the charges are completely misrepresented. The packing was one minor detail in the big picture.

From the link in the article: "Following a jury trial, all four petitioners were convicted of conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. 371 for their part in the unlawful importation scheme. McNab, Blandford, and Schoenwetter were convicted of knowingly importing merchandise into the United States contrary to law in violation of 18 U.S.C. 545. Blandford was convicted of violating the Lacey Act, 16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq., by: (1) dealing in fish and wildlife that he knew were unlawfully taken, possessed, transported, or sold, 16 U.S.C. 3372(a)(2)(A), 3373(d)(1)(B); and (2) dealing in fish and wildlife that he should have known were unlawfully taken, possessed, transported, or sold, 16 U.S.C. 3372(a)(2)(A), 3373(d)(2). Huang was convicted of violating the Lacey Act by: (1) dealing in fish and wildlife that she should have known were unlawfully taken, possessed, transported, or sold, 16 U.S.C. 3372(a)(2)(A), 3373(d)(2); and (2) falsely labeling fish or wildlife, 16 U.S.C. 3372(d), 3373(d)(3)(A)(i). McNab and Blandford also were convicted of engaging in monetary transactions involving criminally derived property, 18 U.S.C. 1957, and of conspiring to engage in monetary transactions involving criminally derived property, 18 U.S.C. 1957, 1956(h). Pet. App. 79a-80a; 03-627 Pet. App. 169a-170a, 172a, 174a-175a. In total, McNab was found guilty on 28 counts, Blandford on 37 counts, Schoenwetter on 7 counts, and Huang on 17 counts. Pet. App. 8a."

So yeah... everyone who makes a mistake gets off lightly and the people who engage in illegal trade of poached wildlife get a severe penalty... I see no problem here.

It is a matter of consistency in application. A mistake is still "intent" for legal purposes, to change this would have serious ramifications for the remainder of the system.

All jurisdictions apply the general "ignorance of the laws is not an excuse", which is also necessary, otherwise "I didn't know I was breaking the law" would be far too common of a defense, and a very hard one to successfully undermine.

(and yea, what Detmer said too, nobody who had a "mistake" was punished very heavily)


Additionally, this is 4 or 5 cases over 30 years, in a country that has 300 million people... I'm sure there's more, but the fact that they weren't all from 2011 indicates that there's a pretty low false-positive rate (and that people probably generally know what the law is)

Yeah, getting busted smuggling 400,000 pounds of illegally harvested lobsters into the country will get you some jail time. I love the way Forbes magazine tries to spin this as some poor business man being harassed by the anti-business government. Please, he knew damn good and well what he was doing, he just got caught.

lol OP fail

Yeah, getting one government agency to sign off on your imports thinking that you're doing everything right is smuggling lobsters alright.

Sorry, but no. The FDA said he was doing what he was suppose to do and then another agency comes in and says that he had to use cardboard instead of plastic, so now he faces charges. Abner Schoenwetter was charged with trading illegally caught lobster. Okay that's fine, but who gets to decide it was illegally caught? In this case, the government of Honduras got to decide whether it was legally caught or not. If Honduras says the lobster was legally caught, then Schoenwetter can't be guilty of trading in illegally caught lobster. Oh wait, I'm forgetting myself; a group of US prosecutors know better than the Attorney General of Honduras whether or not the lobster was illegally caught in Honduras.

What the judge in this case should have done was call the Honduran Attorney General and have a conversation.

Judge to Honduran AG: Was the lobster in this case illegally caught?

Honduran AG: NO.

Judge to US Prosecutors: Do you have any evidence of bribery, coercion, etc. influence the Honduran AG?

US Prosecutors: No.

Judge: Then GET OUT of MY COURTROOM! Case dismissed with prejudice!

1) It is US law that it is illegal to sell in the US any foreign fish or wildlife that is in violation of that nation's law. (The Lacey Act)
2) He knowingly broke that US law by importing and selling those illegal lobsters.

I am not sure where you are getting this Honduran Attorney General crap from... Fox News? Wall Street Journal? The lobster have to have a 5.5 inch tail. This isn't some Honduran lawyer interpretation of something... all you need is a ruler, measuring tape, etc to figure out that he broke the law...

Judging the quality of a criminal prosecution based on a news blurb or media story is often difficult. I have *never* seen a news article on this subject when I knew the facts first-hand that didn't contain at least some mistakes. And, at the very least, stories like the one cited above have some slant or point that is emphasized by enlarging on some facts and/or leaving some facts out.

Prosecutors (as well as judges and defense attorneys) are people too, but they usually employ a significant amount of common sense in the application of the law. A "wacky" prosecution story, especially one that ends in someone going to jail, is likely to be just that -- a story.

Did you actually read the case angel? The Honduran AG came to the US and testified in the trial. Since when does the FDA enforce conservation treaties?

I take it you didn't read the case report either?

I concede Schoenwetter's case, but the others are still at issue to greater or lesser degrees. The sewage case should have been purely civil in nature. The arrowhead case should not have gone to court at all. In the sewer case, Lawrence Lewis thought that the drain went to a proper cleaning facility. He and his coworkers were under this impression. Mr. Lewis's only intent was to help prevent disease among some of the sickest people in his city. The city failed to provide adequate knowledge to Mr. Lewis and so ONLY the city should have been held liable either criminal or civil.

In the arrowhead case, the punishment is excessive, IMO.

So the city should tell everyone in the city where every ditch and pipe leads to so they have that material on hand when they choose where to drain their sewage? In my personal opinion ignorance is not an excuse and you should do your homework when you are diverting sewage somewhere.

I take it you're in favor of people suing McDonalds for spilling hot coffee on themselves since the cup didn't say the coffee was hot and not intended to be applied to the skin? And that everyone and everything should come with a handbook of warnings? I am sure the government could produce several tomes of instructions telling people how to manage their lives within accordance of every law.

The city does let people know where pipes and drainage systems lead. It is all publically available documentation that can be accessed by anyone.

That is absolutely true. I wasn't clear that I meant giving print material with all that information to everyone. The way I said it certainly is not ludicrous and is reality.

Detmer, what I'm saying is that the city as Mr. Lewis's employer should have taken steps to make sure that their employees were aware of information that directly pertained to their jobs. The city (as Mr. Lewis's employer) was negligent in this. Mr. Lewis should not be punished for the city's negligence as his employer. Mr. Lewis was not acting as an individual; he was acting as an employee to a negligent employer.

For the Record, no McDonalds should not be sued for coffee burning people.

Dear Detmer,

Despite the fact that this is not a criminal prosecution (which was the original topic of discussion), the McDonald's coffee case is a perfect example of why you shouldn't judge a case solely by what you read in the news.

In the McDonald's coffee case, a woman sued because she was injured by spilling hot coffee from their restaurant on her lap. This was as much as most of the media reported, and they primarily focused on the fact that anyone who is unknowingly injured by hot coffee is an idiot. What they didn't tell you about the case included the following:

1) Ordinary restaurant coffee is served at approximately 140 degrees.

2) McDonald's deliberately served their coffee at 210 degrees (just short of boiling temperature).

3) The McDonald's corporation (as evidenced via internal memoranda) was aware that serving "super-hot" coffee was likely to cause serious burns (much more so than "ordinary" hot coffee) to anyone who spilled it on themselves.

4) McDonald's served their coffee at super-hot temperatures anyway knowing the risks for two reasons:

- Super-hot coffee would stay hot longer, which would please commuter customers.
- Super-hot coffee tended to mask the true coffee taste, which allowed McDonald's to get away with crappy (and cheaper) coffee, thereby increasing corporate profits.

5) McDonald's executives weighed the pros and cons of serving super-hot coffee and decided that the benefits to the corporation outweighed the potential physical harm that might be done done to any of their customers.

Now, I'm not saying that the lady who sued McDonald's should have won (although I will note that, as a result of the lawsuit, McDonald's stopped serving "super-hot" coffee), but I will say that trying to judge a court action based on what you read in the media is problematic.

And this is just a civil tort action.

If you won't take my example as evidence for caution, perhaps you'll simply take my word for it. As a result of my job I see what happens in court all the time, and then I read about it (or watch it on TV) afterwards. To a greater or lesser extent, what you read (or see) is simply wrong.

Best regards.

I think it being the law to have health insurance just because i exist is crap.

does this mean it's a good time for me to invest in guillotine manufacturing? or maybe rope companies.

hmm, and is it true that we're passing a law that US citizens can be arrested and detained indefinitely without trial by being labeled as a terror suspect? read an article on BBC news about it.

You completely missed my point. The point was not using McDonalds as a case study but rather to ask Angel what he felt about necessary warnings in an abstract sense. I suppose alluding to a situation that really happened could introduce bias into the opinion since it is no longer purely abstract.

I am not an expert on this, but there are laws that protect employees from being sued in the line of work...

i thin not so much the laws but people know if they sue employees they will just go bankrupt and the real money is with the company. IE no one sues employees- except DRs.

Maybe. 30 seconds on Google hasn't clarified things for me.

The reason Mr. Lewis was sued was because he was not just a simple employee, he was the chief engineer.

Thus he was expected to be the city's expert on such matters, and the one informing his subordinates etc.

If youre driving a car with bald tires and you slide on wet pavement causing an accident, who is responsible?

The tire manufacturer?
The car manufacturer?
The vehicle owner for not performing vehicle maintenance?
The driver for not using due caution?


Imo the woman who sued mcdonalds should be shot in the face.

So the woman's family can summarily sue you, the NRA, and Smith & Wesson?
:P