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

Explaining SoWal...

New posts
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...

Summary- damned if you do and damned if you don't.
 
Smiling JOe said:
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...


In terms of elements three and four, and a good defense if you were caught carrying undersized fish, would be to say that you were trying to preserve the intentions of the legislation which protects the fish in the first place. By carrying the fish on your boat to a safe area, you could say that you have not met the element of (intentional) harm and that your cause is to preserve the life of the undersized fish. Thus, in theory negating a guilty mind of knowingly carrying an undersized fish and all the while not feeding the dolphins.


I do not take criminal law until next semester, but we did touch on it in torts, contracts and in civil procedure, which is how I was able to come up with this answer.
 
Last edited:
bsmart said:
In terms of elements three and four, and a good defense if you were caught carrying undersized fish, would be to say that you were trying to preserve the intentions of the legislation which protects the fish in the first place. By carrying the fish on your boat to a safe area, you could say that you have not met the element of (intentional) harm and that your cause is to preserve the life of the undersized fish. Thus, in theory negating a guilty mind of knowingly carrying an undersized fish and all the while not feeding the dolphins.


I do not take criminal law until next semester, but we did touch on it in torts, contracts and in civil procedure, which is how I was able to come up with this answer.
Click to expand...

You may want to pass this on to Dead Fish Larry. ;-)

Very good analysis, bsmart, but as Jdarg summarized, the fish suffers, and everyone, but the Dolphin, gets screwed.
 
Last edited:
jdarg said:
Nice save. I always find myself trying to explain my imaginary friends.:clap_1: You missed your chance for your entire class to see that you are nuts.
Click to expand...


One of these days I am going to forget to take my medicine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter









Share this page




                               
Back
Top