4 ms·

Close enough to it, see eg. the Lacey Act. Here's a link to somebody who got a two-year sentence in the US for importing lobster tails packed in plastic bags f

Close enough to it, see eg. the Lacey Act. Here's a link to somebody who got a two-year sentence in the US for importing lobster tails packed in plastic bags from Honduras, because under Honduran law it was illegal to do so -- and she went to jail anyway, even though Honduras pointed out that the law is off the books. http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/alobsterstail.htm http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/alobsterst...

rayiner 14y ago
In this week's edition of "Don't Believe Everything You Read on the Internet": http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2004/mar04/noaa04-r119.html http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2004/mar04/noaa04-... These people went to jail because: 1) It's against (American) federal law to import wildlife taken in violation of the laws of another country; 2) The people in question took substantial measures to hide their smuggling activity; 3) The amount of illegal goods in question here was valued at millions of dollars. The fact that it was no longer illegal in Honduras doesn't matter, though the reason why is rather esoteric. In criminal matters, liability requires two concurrent elements: 1) an act; 2) a certain state of mind. You have to have both at the same time--one by itself won't do. E.g. if I'm in the woods hunting and I shoot and kill someone thinking they are a deer, I'm not guilty of murder because while I have engaged in every action required to commit the crime I did not have the requisite state of mind. Here, they imported wildlife, and they did so with the knowledge/belief that the wild life had been taken in violation of Honduran law. They were mistaken about whether the wild life had actually been taken in violation of Honduran law, but as a general rule mistakes do not change the outcome unless the mistake negates the state of mind. In this case, their mistake did not negate their guilty state of mind. The result seems harsh, but it's just the symmetry of the rule. It's no more conceptually unfair than say holding someone guilty of attempted murder.
- nitrogen 14y ago
  AKA thoughtcrime. In other words, they are guilty because they think they are, even though they aren't?
  - rayiner 14y ago
    If you go to Nicaragua, and buy what you think is heroin, and smuggle it into the country and it turns out to be baking soda, is it a "thought crime" to punish you for drug smuggling?
    - krickle 14y ago
      Thoughtcrime is definitely the wrong term for this class of unjust punishment.
    - nitrogen 14y ago
      As krickle said, thoughtcrime (as one word in reference to 1984, of course) is probably the wrong term. Still, outside of violent crimes like murder, I'd prefer to live in a society with a "no harm, no foul" policy. If there is a penalty for thinking you are breaking the law by smuggling lobster tails into the country, but it turns out to be legal anyway, that penalty should be vanishingly small.
    - lmm 14y ago
      Yes. Isn't it? To my mind what you've done there is very obviously not a crime.
- maratd 14y ago
  > It's against (American) federal law to import wildlife taken in violation of the laws of another country > The fact that it was no longer illegal in Honduras doesn't matter Huh? So in your mind, if you're acting suspiciously, even though you've broken no laws ... you should go to jail? > They were mistaken about whether the wild life had actually been taken in violation of Honduran law, but as a general rule mistakes do not change the outcome unless the mistake negates the state of mind. Thought crime? Wow. > It's no more conceptually unfair than say holding someone guilty of attempted murder. Yeah, see, attempted murder is a crime because you actually tried to kill somebody. Not because you were just in that "state of mind". The state of mind of a person is relevant in criminal proceedings. It can be the difference between manslaughter and murder. But it is not and never has been, a crime in itself. And quite frankly, I've never met a rational person who thought it should be.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    It's not thought crime, because it's coupled with action. They didn't just think "bad thoughts" they engaged in a whole operation they thought was in violation of the law. The "crime" = "action" + "state of mind" conceptualization is the result of the Model Penal Code (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_Penal_Code http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_Penal_Code), which is an extremely well thought-out systematization of the centuries old principles of Anglo-American penal law. Ango-American law has always placed a very heavy emphasis on state of mind, though the Model Penal Code is more rigorous about applying the principle. However, it stops far short of punishing thought crimes, because it always requires a guilty state of mind to be accompanied by action. As for why this is rational, think deeply about the attempted murder example. Consider A plots to murder B, and with that plot in mind buys a gun and heads for B's house. The police catch him and charge him with attempted murder because: 1) he intended to kill B; 2) he took a substantial step towards carrying out his goal. Why do we punish A? Nobody has actually gotten hurt, and B might not even know he was in danger. Moreover, say A unknowingly bought a defective gun that wouldn't shoot. Is he still guilty of attempted murder? Yep. Why? Because he had the required guilty state of mind but not only that he took action while having that guilty state of mind. We don't punish the state of mind by itself, we punish the convergence of guilty state of mind and action. In this case, the people: 1) intended to smuggle illegally-taken lobster tails; and 2) actually imported the tails. The secret code they used and their failures to report are evidence that they knew or believed they were engaging in illegal activity. Should we punish them? Why not? How is this situation any different? The fact that the tails are legal under Honduran law is merely a fact like the inoperable gun in the previous example.

rayiner 14y ago

In this week's edition of "Don't Believe Everything You Read on the Internet": http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2004/mar04/noaa04-r119.html http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2004/mar04/noaa04-... These people went to jail because: 1) It's against (American) federal law to import wildlife taken in violation of the laws of another country; 2) The people in question took substantial measures to hide their smuggling activity; 3) The amount of illegal goods in question here was valued at millions of dollars. The fact that it was no longer illegal in Honduras doesn't matter, though the reason why is rather esoteric. In criminal matters, liability requires two concurrent elements: 1) an act; 2) a certain state of mind. You have to have both at the same time--one by itself won't do. E.g. if I'm in the woods hunting and I shoot and kill someone thinking they are a deer, I'm not guilty of murder because while I have engaged in every action required to commit the crime I did not have the requisite state of mind. Here, they imported wildlife, and they did so with the knowledge/belief that the wild life had been taken in violation of Honduran law. They were mistaken about whether the wild life had actually been taken in violation of Honduran law, but as a general rule mistakes do not change the outcome unless the mistake negates the state of mind. In this case, their mistake did not negate their guilty state of mind. The result seems harsh, but it's just the symmetry of the rule. It's no more conceptually unfair than say holding someone guilty of attempted murder.

nitrogen 14y ago
AKA thoughtcrime. In other words, they are guilty because they think they are, even though they aren't?
- rayiner 14y ago
  If you go to Nicaragua, and buy what you think is heroin, and smuggle it into the country and it turns out to be baking soda, is it a "thought crime" to punish you for drug smuggling?
  - krickle 14y ago
    Thoughtcrime is definitely the wrong term for this class of unjust punishment.
  - nitrogen 14y ago
    As krickle said, thoughtcrime (as one word in reference to 1984, of course) is probably the wrong term. Still, outside of violent crimes like murder, I'd prefer to live in a society with a "no harm, no foul" policy. If there is a penalty for thinking you are breaking the law by smuggling lobster tails into the country, but it turns out to be legal anyway, that penalty should be vanishingly small.
  - lmm 14y ago
    Yes. Isn't it? To my mind what you've done there is very obviously not a crime.
maratd 14y ago
> It's against (American) federal law to import wildlife taken in violation of the laws of another country > The fact that it was no longer illegal in Honduras doesn't matter Huh? So in your mind, if you're acting suspiciously, even though you've broken no laws ... you should go to jail? > They were mistaken about whether the wild life had actually been taken in violation of Honduran law, but as a general rule mistakes do not change the outcome unless the mistake negates the state of mind. Thought crime? Wow. > It's no more conceptually unfair than say holding someone guilty of attempted murder. Yeah, see, attempted murder is a crime because you actually tried to kill somebody. Not because you were just in that "state of mind". The state of mind of a person is relevant in criminal proceedings. It can be the difference between manslaughter and murder. But it is not and never has been, a crime in itself. And quite frankly, I've never met a rational person who thought it should be.
- rayiner 14y ago
  It's not thought crime, because it's coupled with action. They didn't just think "bad thoughts" they engaged in a whole operation they thought was in violation of the law. The "crime" = "action" + "state of mind" conceptualization is the result of the Model Penal Code (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_Penal_Code http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_Penal_Code), which is an extremely well thought-out systematization of the centuries old principles of Anglo-American penal law. Ango-American law has always placed a very heavy emphasis on state of mind, though the Model Penal Code is more rigorous about applying the principle. However, it stops far short of punishing thought crimes, because it always requires a guilty state of mind to be accompanied by action. As for why this is rational, think deeply about the attempted murder example. Consider A plots to murder B, and with that plot in mind buys a gun and heads for B's house. The police catch him and charge him with attempted murder because: 1) he intended to kill B; 2) he took a substantial step towards carrying out his goal. Why do we punish A? Nobody has actually gotten hurt, and B might not even know he was in danger. Moreover, say A unknowingly bought a defective gun that wouldn't shoot. Is he still guilty of attempted murder? Yep. Why? Because he had the required guilty state of mind but not only that he took action while having that guilty state of mind. We don't punish the state of mind by itself, we punish the convergence of guilty state of mind and action. In this case, the people: 1) intended to smuggle illegally-taken lobster tails; and 2) actually imported the tails. The secret code they used and their failures to report are evidence that they knew or believed they were engaging in illegal activity. Should we punish them? Why not? How is this situation any different? The fact that the tails are legal under Honduran law is merely a fact like the inoperable gun in the previous example.