Follow POL on Twitter
Last week, George Will wrote about Marine biologist Nancy Black, who has been under criminal investigation for years in connection with a 2005 incident in which a crew member on her whale-watching ship whistled at a humpback whale. (Yes, you read that right.) The Wall Street Journal previously reported that Ms. Black was not charged with interfering with the whale, but with making a false statement to government investigators when she edited a videotape of the incident in order to highlight the whistling. Ms. Black is also under investigation for illegally "feeding" killer whales, when she cut a hole in a strip of blubber (which the orcas had torn off a gray whale they had killed, and on which they were already feeding) in order to photograph the whales. Ms. Black's home has been raided, her files and computers seized, her accountant subpoenaed, and her life savings depleted. George Will likens the situation to Kafka, but when examining whether this is how the criminal law should work, we might ask ourselves, as the Pequod's crew did, is this what we shipped for?
Is This What We Shipped For? US Government's Pursuit of Marine Biologist Nancy Black Continues
2 Comments
Leave a comment
Once submitted, the comment will first be reviewed by our editors and is not guaranteed to be published. Point of Law editors reserve the right to edit, delete, move, or mark as spam any and all comments. They also have the right to block access to any one or group from commenting or from the entire blog. A comment which does not add to the conversation, runs of on an inappropriate tangent, or kills the conversation may be edited, moved, or deleted.
The views and opinions of those providing comments are those of the author of the comment alone, and even if allowed onto the site do not reflect the opinions of Point of Law bloggers or the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research or any employee thereof. Comments submitted to Point of Law are the sole responsibility of their authors, and the author will take full responsibility for the comment, including any asserted liability for defamation or any other cause of action, and neither the Manhattan Institute nor its insurance carriers will assume responsibility for the comment merely because the Institute has provided the forum for its posting.
Related Entries:
- Fish-nancial Fraud
- Bond v. U.S.
- A Poster Child for Overcriminalization: The History of the Lacey Act
- Opposing FCPA Overcriminalization
- The Detrimental Effects of Extreme Deterrence
- Debate Concludes: The need for a reasonable mistake of law defense
- Reply: Never underestimate a defense lawyer's imagination
- A Debate: The need for a reasonable mistake of law defense
- Follow the debate: Overcriminalization is a problem, but a 'mistake of law defense' is not the right solution
- New Featured Discussion: Reconsidering the 'mistake of law defense' in the battle against overcriminalization
- Teen Sexting, Youthful Mistake or Felony?
- New Podcast: Federal overcriminalization hurts Ohioans
- Illinois, Chicago treats small businesses like they're a problem
- A better solution to prison overcrowding
- Whose Intent is it Anyway? The Case for State Flexibility in Criminal Law
Mr. Will repeated the accounts of Ms. Black's lawyer without bothering to investigate their validity. Mr. Will is not a lawyer and doesn't know any better. Your brief article distills the charges made by Mr. Will, which are based on the accounts told by Ms. Blacks lawyer, which are based on what Ms. Black told her lawyer. The whole process resembles homeopathy, which dilutes a substance until there is nothing left but water. Your organization represents itself as knowledgeable about the law and should know better.
Paul Enzinna's views and opinions, as with all Point of Law contributors, are his own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of other Point of Law bloggers, the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research or any employee thereof, or of Mr. Enzinna's employer.