DBMA Martial Arts Forum > Martial Arts Topics

Criminal Justice system

<< < (9/11) > >>

G M:
TITLE 16 > CHAPTER 70 > § 5008
Prev | Next
§ 5008. Enforcement provisions


(a) Duties of Secretaries of Commerce and Transportation
This chapter shall be enforced by the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of Transportation. Such Secretaries may by agreement utilize, on a reimbursable basis or otherwise, the personnel, services, equipment (including aircraft and vessels), and facilities of any other Federal agency, including all elements of the Department of Defense, and of any State agency, in the performance of such duties. Such Secretaries shall, and the head of any Federal or State agency that has entered into an agreement with either such Secretary under the preceding sentence may (if the agreement so provides), authorize officers to enforce the provisions of the Convention, this chapter, and regulations issued under this chapter. Any such agreement or contract entered into pursuant to this section shall be effective only to such extent or in such amounts as are provided in advance in appropriations Acts.
(b) District court jurisdiction
The district courts of the United States shall have exclusive jurisdiction over any case or controversy arising under the provisions of this chapter.
(c) Powers of enforcement officers
Authorized officers may, shoreward of the outer boundary of the exclusive economic zone, or during hot pursuit from the zone—
(1) with or without a warrant or other process—
(A) arrest any person, if the officer has reasonable cause to believe that such person has committed an act prohibited by section 5009 of this title;
(B) board, and search or inspect, any fishing vessel subject to the provisions of the Convention and this chapter;
(C) seize any fishing vessel (together with its fishing gear, furniture, appurtenances, stores, and cargo) used or employed in, or with respect to which it reasonably appears that such vessel was used or employed in, the violation of any provision of the Convention, this chapter, or regulations issued under this chapter;
(D) seize any fish (wherever found) taken or retained in violation of any provision referred to in subparagraph (C);
(E) seize any other evidence related to any violation of any provision referred to in subparagraph (C);
(2) execute any warrant or other process issued by any court of competent jurisdiction; and
(3) exercise any other lawful authority.
(d) Additional powers
(1) An authorized officer may in the Convention area—
(A) board a vessel of any Party that reasonably can be believed to be engaged in directed fishing for, incidental taking of, or processing of anadromous fish, and, without warrant or process, inspect equipment, logs, documents, catch, and other articles, and question persons, on board the vessel, for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Convention, this chapter, or any regulation issued under this chapter; and
(B) If [1] any such vessel or person on board is actually engaged in operations in violation of any such provision, or there is reasonable ground to believe any person or vessel was obviously so engaged before the boarding of such vessel by the authorized officer, arrest or seize such person or vessel and further investigate the circumstance if necessary.
If an authorized officer, after boarding and investigation, has reasonable cause to believe that any such fishing vessel or person engaged in operations in violation of any provision referred to in subparagraph (A), the officer shall deliver the vessel or person as promptly as practicable to the enforcement officers of the appropriate Party, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention.
(2) When requested by the appropriate authorities of a Party, an authorized officer may be directed to attend as a witness, and to produce such available records and files or duly certified copies thereof as may be necessary, for the prosecution by that Party of any violation of the provisions of the Convention or any law of that Party relating to the enforcement thereof.

G M:
so who's gonna miss a couple fish?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/02/AR2006110200913.html

The paper, published in the journal Science, concludes that overfishing, pollution and other environmental factors are wiping out important species around the globe, hampering the ocean's ability to produce seafood, filter nutrients and resist the spread of disease.

"We really see the end of the line now," said lead author Boris Worm, a marine biologist at Canada's Dalhousie University. "It's within our lifetime. Our children will see a world without seafood if we don't change things."

The 14 researchers from Canada, Panama, Sweden, Britain and the United States spent four years analyzing fish populations, catch records and ocean ecosystems to reach their conclusion. They found that by 2003 -- the last year for which data on global commercial fish catches are available -- 29 percent of all fished species had collapsed, meaning they are now at least 90 percent below their historic maximum catch levels.

The rate of population collapses has accelerated in recent years. As of 1980, just 13.5 percent of fished species had collapsed, even though fishing vessels were pursuing 1,736 fewer species then. Today, the fishing industry harvests 7,784 species commercially.

"It's like hitting the gas pedal and holding it down at a constant level," Worm said in a telephone interview. "The rate accelerates over time."

Some American fishery management officials, industry representatives and academics questioned the team's dire predictions, however, saying countries such as the United States and New Zealand have taken steps in recent years to halt the depletion of their commercial fisheries.

"The projection is way too pessimistic, at least for the United States," said Steven Murawski, chief scientist for the National Marine Fisheries Service, which is part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "We've got the message. We will continue to reverse this trend."

G M:
http://www.economist.com/research/economics/alphabetic.cfm?letter=T#tragedyofthecommons

Tragedy of the commons

A 19th-century amateur mathematician, William Forster Lloyd, modelled the fate of a common pasture shared among rational, UTILITY-maximising herdsmen. He showed that as the POPULATION increased the pasture would inevitably be destroyed. This tragedy may be the fate of all sorts of common resources, because no individual, firm or group has meaningful PROPERTY RIGHTS that would make them think twice about using so much of it that it is destroyed.

Once a resource is being used at a rate near its sustainable capacity, any additional use will reduce its value to its current users. Thus they will increase their usage to maintain the value of the resource to them, resulting in a further deterioration in its value, and so on, until no value remains. Contemporary examples include overfishing and the polluting of the atmosphere.

Body-by-Guinness:
I don't think you are reading the piece or the links in the article closely enough, GM. This appears to be an instance of profit based policing where the enforcement arm is using the "profits" to pick up swag like cars and boats, pay for international travel, while almost half of the $96 million in fines levied are unaccounted for. Probable cause is not required before they board a ship, administrative judges who don't sound particularly neutral are used, oversight is lacking, and means of appeal few and expensive. This sounds like a recipe for law enforcement run amok, and the IG report appears to document just that. While I'm certainly not arguing for overfishing, I do think a what sounds like a corrupt and poorly supervised agency needs a big dose of transparency and accountability, and fear this instance serves as a model for what we can expect in similar instances where transparency and lack of accountability combined with a profit motive are allowed to take root in enforcement agencies.

G M:
I don't think you are reading the piece or the links in the article closely enough, GM. This appears to be an instance of profit based policing where the enforcement arm is using the "profits" to pick up swag like cars and boats,

**I think a maritime law enforcement agency would need cars and boats. Take home cars for federal investigators are not uncommon, as they are often on call 24/7.Would you rather taxpayers fund leases for the vehicles?**

pay for international travel,

**Federal agents travel internationally, sometimes a lot depending on what they do and the cases they are working. Again, if money from fines isn't used, then taxpayer dollars or the national credit card takes a hit.**

while almost half of the $96 million in fines levied are unaccounted for.

**Don't you think that if there was any evidence of criminal misconduct, there would be a referral from the IG to the DOJ for prosecution? It looks like another federal agency with less that sterling accounting practices, which tends to be how things work everywhere in the USG.**

Probable cause is not required before they board a ship,

**It isn't required for US Customs and Border Protection, or the US Coast Guard either. By federal statute, the USCG can board any vessel in any body of water that the US has jurisdiction over, including a lake or river in the middle of the CONUS. If I recall correctly, this has been challenged in the courts and the federal courts have upheld these laws.**

administrative judges who don't sound particularly neutral are used

**I can tell you from personal experience with administrative judges on a state level that they have been more defense oriented than the typical judge in a criminal court. Admin judges are used all over the country at various levels of government. What evidence do you have to show that these judges tend to favor the NOAA ?**

oversight is lacking,

**You are referring to an IG's report, that provides oversight.**

and means of appeal few and expensive.

**Any litigation is expensive.**


While I'm certainly not arguing for overfishing, I do think a what sounds like a corrupt and poorly supervised agency needs a big dose of transparency and accountability, and fear this instance serves as a model for what we can expect in similar instances where transparency and lack of accountability combined with a profit motive are allowed to take root in enforcement agencies.

**I think the article was a shallow hit-piece with the typical law enforcement-bashing agenda based on hype and emotion rather than facts.**

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page