The FOCUS Act Hearing: Unpersuasive Criticisms and Tacit Admissions

mandym · May 11, 2012

Thankfully, the law sometimes reflects common sense. Here’s an example: Innocent people ordinarily do not remain silent when accused of having committed a crime or some other misconduct. As the result, it is reasonable to infer that such an accusation is true if a person does not deny it. In the law, that sensible proposition is embodied in the doctrine of “Tacit Admissions.” The doctrine works as follows: If someone accuses you of a crime or unethical conduct and you don’t deny it, a jury can infer that you committed what you are alleged to have done.

Keep that proposition in mind for a minute....

...What was most interesting about yesterday’s hearing, however, was what critics of the FOCUS Act did not say:

No critic argued that Abner Schoenwetter[8] and people like him should be sent to prison for “heinous” crimes such as importing lobsters into the United States that, under a void Honduran law, were too small to be taken and that should have been packed in boxes rather than in clear plastic bags.
No critic argued that the Lacey Act does not apply to the violation of any and every law of any and every foreign nation.
No critic argued that it is reasonable—to say nothing of desirable—to send people to jail for violating a foreign law that they did not know even existed.
No critic argued that the Lacey Act cannot be criminally enforced in this matter.
No critic—I’m referring specifically now to the federal government’s witnesses—foreswore prosecuting individuals for such a crime.
And no critic of the FOCUS Act was willing to say the following:

“Yes, it is grossly unfair to send someone to prison in these circumstances:

· “For unwittingly violating any law of any foreign nation when importing flora or fauna from overseas;

· “Whether that law is a statute, a regulation, an interpretation of a regulation (official or not), or something else without any counterpart in our country;

· “However unrelated to conservation or the environment that law may be;

· “However trivial that law may be;

· “However difficult to find that law it may be;

· “Whatever the language in which that law is written may be;

· “Even though the very nation whose laws were allegedly violated has no interest in enforcing its own laws;

· “Even though that nation may not give a fig about the environment as long as the locals get paid to ravage their own lands; and

· “Even though an offender can be sentenced to, let’s say, 10,000 years, a one-year sentence for every fish or flower negligently hauled in and imported by a commercial boat.

“Yes, that is grossly unfair, but we want that done anyway because (check the appropriate box):

□ “We are environmentalists and believe that trees in Guyana are more important than people’s lives in the United States, and we believe this even if the laws in Guyana really don’t protect trees.
Click to expand...

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...ion-and-unjust-seizures-act-focus-act-hearing

billwald · May 11, 2012

So what is the defense against ignorant judges and juries?

Does "jury of our peers" infer that we get what we deserve?

The FOCUS Act Hearing: Unpersuasive Criticisms and Tacit Admissions

mandym New Member

billwald New Member

Useful Searches

The FOCUS Act Hearing: Unpersuasive Criticisms and Tacit Admissions

mandym New Member

billwald New Member