• Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.

Explaining SoWal...

New posts
bsmart said:
I was still trying to restart it when class began and just when it became unfrozen my professor walked up to me and wanted to see my outline with some questions I had for him on it. I showed him the environmental forum and he commented that "the seawall issue is an interesting thing here," and asked me if I was "planning on taking on the issue in your later studies?"
Click to expand...


What subject does your professor teach?
 
Last edited:
he probably wouldn't be interested in the lounge area anyway. who knows though... he could be in for a real education... did you tell him that you are fairly certain that most of us are not ax murderers? except olive that is... she admitted it one day.
 
audie said:
sounds like someone is the teacher's pet ......:funn:
Click to expand...



You know he did call me by my first name after we had an environmental law conversation, which lead into NEPA and my interest in NEPA compliance.
 
bsmart, I came across this question today. Perhaps you can have the class work on it.

First note, the two laws:
1) It is illegal to feed Dolphins
2) It is illegal to keep undersized fish.

Problem: You are out on the boat. You catch a undersized fish. Problem - the Dolphin have come in to try and steal your catch, and eat throw backs. What do you do? Do you keep the tired undersized fish in your live well until you can escape the Dolphin and then throw them back? (reminder- you cannot keep undersized fish on your boat) Or, do you throw them back in where the Dolphin without missing, will eat them? (reminder- it is illegal to feed the Dolphin)

I am serious about this. See if your class has an answer. If conservation is to take place by allowing the undersized fish to grow, it seems to make no sense to throw them back out when the Dolphin are waiting for easy lunch. :idontno:
 
Smiling JOe said:
bsmart, I came across this question today. Perhaps you can have the class work on it.

First note, the two laws:
1) It is illegal to feed Dolphins
2) It is illegal to keep undersized fish.

Problem: You are out on the boat. You catch a undersized fish. Problem - the Dolphin have come in to try and steal your catch, and eat throw backs. What do you do? Do you keep the tired undersized fish in your live well until you can escape the Dolphin and then throw them back? (reminder- you cannot keep undersized fish on your boat) Or, do you throw them back in where the Dolphin without missing, will eat them? (reminder- it is illegal to feed the Dolphin)

I am serious about this. See if your class has an answer. If conservation is to take place by allowing the undersized fish to grow, it seems to make no sense to throw them back out when the Dolphin are waiting for easy lunch. :idontno:
Click to expand...


There are five essential elements of a crime:

1) mens rea--guilty mind;
2) act (effort);
3) the concurence of (fusion) of mens rea and act;
4) harm; and
5) causation


Basically all of these elements, especially mens rea, need to be identified in order for punishment to be inflicted on an accused.

Now for our case. It should be the intent of the person who has caught an undersized fish to throw it back into the ocean and to not keep it, for if he or she kept it in the boat until he or she has reached an area where there are no dolphins, then this person DOES have the intentions of keeping the undersized fish in the boat and mens rea is identified, and regardless of the purpose of the act, the person then becomes guilty of breaking that law which states that it is illegal to keep undersized fish. But, I assume for the purposes of your example, that it is not the intent of the person to feed the dolphins. Therefore, this person has NOT met the mens rea aspect of the illegal act of feeding dolphins, because it is his or her intent to throw back undersized fish so as to not break this law, regardless of what happens to that fish once it leaves the care of that person and once again enters the open waters of the ocean. So, mens rea in the the case of feeding the dolphins is not met, but it is met when you keep the undersized fish for the seemingly good purposes of taking them to an area where there are no dolphins.
 
Last edited:
:shock: this is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to serious and deep for me...:floor:
bsmart said:
There are five essential elements of a crime:

1) mens rea--guilty mind;
2) act (effort);
3) the concurence of (fusion) of mens rea and act;
4) harm; and
5) causation


Basically all of these elements, especially mens rea, need to be identified in order for punishment to be inflicted on an accused.

Now for our case. It should be the intent of the person who has caught an undersized fish to throw it back into the ocean and to not keep it, for if he or she kept it in the boat until he or she has reached an area where there are no dolphins, then this person DOES have the intentions of keeping the undersized fish in the boat and mens rea is identified, and regardless of the purpose of the act, the person then becomes guilty of breaking that law which states that it is illegal to keep undersized fish. But, I assume for the purposes of your example, that it is not the intent of the person to feed the dolphins. Therefore, this person has NOT met the mens rea aspect of the illegal act of feeding dolphins, because it is his or her intent to throw back undersized fish so as to not break this law, regardless of what happens to that fish once it leaves the care of that person and once again enters the open waters of the ocean. So, mens rea in the the case of feeding the dolphins is not met, but it is met when you keep the undersized fish for the seemingly good purposes of taking them to an area where there are no dolphins.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter









Share this page




                               
Back
Top