Talk:Lacey Act of 1900
 | Law Stub‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | United States Stub‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
new content on John F. Lacey
I merged some new content into the article on Lacey himself. The info on the act should probably be merged here, but it seems to contradict the content of this article. Could someone more knowledgable on the issue take a look? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Does the "Rough Justice" CIte Properly Support the Idea of Criticism of the Lacey Act?
The article now states, "there is criticism that the Lacey Act is sometimes used to prosecute importers which violate foreign laws which are not actually enforced in the respective countries." That sentence is followed by two paragraphs discussing, but not naming, the case U.S. v. McNabb, which involved the illegal importation of lobster tails from Hondoras. The paragraph ends with a cite to an Economist article, "Rough Justice."
The Economist article addresses the trend in the United States of putting people in prison for more time, for more crimes than the rest of the world. The McNabb case is mentioned, but not named, as a lead-off example of how the citizens of the United States are too willing to lock up their fellows. The rest of the piece does not discuss McNabb at all. As a result, I do not think the cite supports the idea that there has been criticism of the Lacey Act, in particular, for punishing insubstantial crimes. The criticism is much more general and addresses the full spectrum of crime.
Moreover, the 11th Circuit addressed the McNabb case on appeal in a published opnion at 331 F.3d 1228. The facts as related in that opinion contradict the Rough Justice commentary. Rough Justice states that the reason for the prosecution was that the defendants had "import[ed] lobster tails in plastic bags rather than cardboard boxes, in violation of a Honduran regulation that Honduras no longer enforces." In constrast, the Court of Appeals decision states
- the lobsters had been exported illegally without first being inspected and processed. Furthermore, the Honduran officials confirmed that there was a 5.5-inch size limit for lobster tails and that all catches had to be reported to Honduran authorities. The Honduran officials provided certified copies of the laws in question. In September of 1999 NMFS agents inspected the lobster shipment that had been seized earlier in the year. The inspection confirmed that the seized lobsters were packed in bulk plastic bags without being processed and revealed that a significant number had a tail length that was less than the 5.5 inches required by the Honduran size limit restriction. In addition, many of the lobsters were egg-bearing or had their eggs removed.
It goes on to explain that the Honduran laws regarding the lobsters were in place and in force when the illegal imports occurred.
As it stands, this article suggests that the Lacey Act was used to send people to jail for using the wrong kind of container. I think the Rough Justice commentary got that very wrong. The U.S. Court of Appeals decision makes it clear that the violations of Honduran law went beyond the container and addressed size limits and the taking of gravid lobsters, which would necessarily have much more serious ecological quesitons. As such, I think the criticism sentence should either be cut or edited to address waht appears to have actually happened in the case.