6 ms·

Another interesting uninhabited zone is in Idaho. Summarized by Wikipedia: The Zone of Death is the name given to the 50 sq mi (129.50 km2) Idaho section of Ye

Another interesting uninhabited zone is in Idaho. Summarized by Wikipedia: The Zone of Death is the name given to the 50 sq mi (129.50 km2) Idaho section of Yellowstone National Park in which, as a result of a purported loophole in the Constitution of the United States, a criminal could theoretically get away with any crime, up to and including murder. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_of_Death_(Yellowstone) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_of_Death_(Yellowstone)

scottcha 6y ago
I worked in that area on a SCA trail crew in 1996, in the Bechlor ranger district, and its nothing we discussed then but looking as the ref it seems this loophole was only noted in 2008. The area is very remote and while in the park not often visited. Its very beautiful with meandering rivers through large grasslands as well as some canyons with the Tetons in the distance.
- lultimouomo 6y ago
  > Its very beautiful with meandering rivers through large grasslands as well as some canyons with the Tetons in the distance. Nice try, murderer.
giantg2 6y ago
Good luck getting the government to honor that. I can't even get a local court and state trooper to follow their own rules of procedures defined in code or basic civil rights.
- icelancer 6y ago
  The poacher who shot an elk there and went to trial had a pretty decent argument citing this particular hypothetical. The judge dismissed the argument but his attorney pressed on; the poacher eventually took a light plea bargain contingent on not appealing and using this line of argumentation. Given the makeup of the federal courts and all the way up to SCOTUS, this would be a dangerous case for the state to take to trial through the appeals process before closing the loophole.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    Do you have a link to the details? Especially why the argument was dismissed?
  - newacct583 6y ago
    I'm not sure I undertstand the courts argument. I guess you're saying that the disproportionately republican justices would be more amenable to a civil liberties reading of the law. But in fact the truth is the opposite: conservative courts have a long and very consistent history of being very friendly to police powers.
    - giantg2 6y ago
      I think the argument is that lower courts are supposed to follow the rulings from higher courts, either due to precedent or just consistency. Lower courts can be hesitant to rule on novel cases, and seem to side with 'guilty until proven otherwise' instead of 'innocent until proven guilty' when these technicalities come along. I feel like you are partially right about conservative judges. I do think they tend to be more 'tough on crime', especially at lower levels. But it also seems that at the higher courts they tend to apply the law as it was written. In this case, if it is applied as written, then the defendant would be dismissed or not guilty. I don't know. Based on my recent experiences, the system is a sham.
    - icelancer 6y ago
      Alito and Thomas yes. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, not so much.
  - jcranmer 6y ago
    Law is not like code or math: you don't follow an inexorable algorithm in law to arrive at the only possible interpretation of the law. When you do this kind of analysis and arrive at this kind of absurdity, more often than not, courts will find that the law actually doesn't permit this absurdity. In this specific case, it's already possible to move jury trials to other districts for difficulty of finding impartial jurors, so it's almost certain that the courts would similarly rule that doing a similar change of venue poses no constitutional issue whatsoever.
phil21 6y ago
Interesting. Now I have to add this paper to my reading list. My immediate curiosity is why our purported murderer couldn't be brought up on charges to conspire to commit murder/transit state lines in the commission of a crime/etc. It'd seem from my layman's perspective you'd almost have to simply have a crime of passion (or at least no premeditation outside this zone) happen - e.g. a pair camping in this area of the park and one murdering the other in a fit of rage.
- giantg2 6y ago
  My guess is the feds would say that because no one lives in that state within that district, that the defendant's rights would not be prejudiced by using other people in the jury since the defendant themselves are not from that area. I disagree with this on the basis that rule of law needs to be followed. The government can't expect people to telepathically know what the laws are. People only know what they are based on what is documented. Basically ignorance of the law should be an excuse if one could not have known the law or the law clearly stated something that supported their position, like in the elk case.
JoeAltmaier 6y ago
The mind boggles! Counterfeiting, drugs, web hosting - any number of prohibited activities could take place there with no possibility of prosecution.

scottcha 6y ago

I worked in that area on a SCA trail crew in 1996, in the Bechlor ranger district, and its nothing we discussed then but looking as the ref it seems this loophole was only noted in 2008. The area is very remote and while in the park not often visited. Its very beautiful with meandering rivers through large grasslands as well as some canyons with the Tetons in the distance.

lultimouomo 6y ago
> Its very beautiful with meandering rivers through large grasslands as well as some canyons with the Tetons in the distance. Nice try, murderer.

giantg2 6y ago

Good luck getting the government to honor that. I can't even get a local court and state trooper to follow their own rules of procedures defined in code or basic civil rights.

icelancer 6y ago
The poacher who shot an elk there and went to trial had a pretty decent argument citing this particular hypothetical. The judge dismissed the argument but his attorney pressed on; the poacher eventually took a light plea bargain contingent on not appealing and using this line of argumentation. Given the makeup of the federal courts and all the way up to SCOTUS, this would be a dangerous case for the state to take to trial through the appeals process before closing the loophole.
- giantg2 6y ago
  Do you have a link to the details? Especially why the argument was dismissed?
- newacct583 6y ago
  I'm not sure I undertstand the courts argument. I guess you're saying that the disproportionately republican justices would be more amenable to a civil liberties reading of the law. But in fact the truth is the opposite: conservative courts have a long and very consistent history of being very friendly to police powers.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    I think the argument is that lower courts are supposed to follow the rulings from higher courts, either due to precedent or just consistency. Lower courts can be hesitant to rule on novel cases, and seem to side with 'guilty until proven otherwise' instead of 'innocent until proven guilty' when these technicalities come along. I feel like you are partially right about conservative judges. I do think they tend to be more 'tough on crime', especially at lower levels. But it also seems that at the higher courts they tend to apply the law as it was written. In this case, if it is applied as written, then the defendant would be dismissed or not guilty. I don't know. Based on my recent experiences, the system is a sham.
  - icelancer 6y ago
    Alito and Thomas yes. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, not so much.
- jcranmer 6y ago
  Law is not like code or math: you don't follow an inexorable algorithm in law to arrive at the only possible interpretation of the law. When you do this kind of analysis and arrive at this kind of absurdity, more often than not, courts will find that the law actually doesn't permit this absurdity. In this specific case, it's already possible to move jury trials to other districts for difficulty of finding impartial jurors, so it's almost certain that the courts would similarly rule that doing a similar change of venue poses no constitutional issue whatsoever.

phil21 6y ago

Interesting. Now I have to add this paper to my reading list. My immediate curiosity is why our purported murderer couldn't be brought up on charges to conspire to commit murder/transit state lines in the commission of a crime/etc. It'd seem from my layman's perspective you'd almost have to simply have a crime of passion (or at least no premeditation outside this zone) happen - e.g. a pair camping in this area of the park and one murdering the other in a fit of rage.

giantg2 6y ago
My guess is the feds would say that because no one lives in that state within that district, that the defendant's rights would not be prejudiced by using other people in the jury since the defendant themselves are not from that area. I disagree with this on the basis that rule of law needs to be followed. The government can't expect people to telepathically know what the laws are. People only know what they are based on what is documented. Basically ignorance of the law should be an excuse if one could not have known the law or the law clearly stated something that supported their position, like in the elk case.

JoeAltmaier 6y ago

The mind boggles! Counterfeiting, drugs, web hosting - any number of prohibited activities could take place there with no possibility of prosecution.