If good, will be a crime

What happened to Moore and Mansell was as bizarre as this hypothetical. While they headed a diving charter in 2020, they stumbled across an abandoned fishing line that they regarded as the work of the poachers. They reacted responsibly: they moved into the line, left the involvement sharks and brought the rig back to the marina, after notifying state officials.

You would think that Moore and Mansell deserve praise for your act of bourgeoisiness. They didn't know that they had stumbled into a nasty research project. They would soon discover their mistakes when the United States' deputy lawyer, Thomas Watts Fitzgerald, tried to send them to prison to send ownership within the “special maritime jurisdiction” of the United States. Your crime: “Steal” the line that you have included and were left on the dock.

The defense lawyer asked the legal judge to tell the jury that theft is wrongly taken “[w]The intention of removing the use or benefits to the owner and converting them into their own use or use of another. “This instruction was not given.

The jury reluctantly returned a culprit after he had qualified over the case for longer than the entire process. The lengthy consideration was interrupted by seven notes to the judge and practically begged for a possibility for released.

Richter Lagoa has not crushed any words in a powerful agreement that corresponds to right -wing outrage. She lamed the public prosecutor and let Watts Fitzgerald miss out by name because she decided to pursue the case. Lagoa emphasized the absurdity of condemning these men as lifelong criminals in order to deal with behavior that no rational person would interpret as a criminal.

The government's logic is cold, as Richter Lagoa, emphasizes so sharply. According to the public prosecutor's argument, her heroic act of disarming the “robber”, which is driven by a real belief in preventing damage, can be rotated into the theft of crimes. Their intention of protecting, their ignorance of the staged nature of the event, the noble reason – none of this would be important under this broad conception of the word “steal”. The only thing the government has to prove is that they have taken the weapon of the “robber” that did not belong to them.

This case underlines the importance of the robust enforcement of doctrines from the defendant. According to general law, the prosecutors had to prove that the accused intended to commit a crime. This is known as a men's Rea. The courts have also interpreted historically ambiguous criminal laws in the light, which is the cheapest for the defendant. This is known as a Linfität. In recent years, legislators and courts have increasingly dispensed with these restrictions, which has led to the criminalization of a completely innocent behavior and the destruction of life of well -intentioned people such as Moore and Mansell.

Perhaps the largest bulwark against unjust convictions and punishments in the foundation was the institution of the independence of the jury, which also belonged to the authority to combat evidence – but was not limited to it. Historically speaking, criminal jurors were not referred to the role of mere fact finders as they are today. The jury played an important role in assessing wisdom, fairness and legitimacy of a certain law enforcement and were able to expose a factually guilty accused if the judiciary asked. These historical powers and privileges still exist today.

It is very doubtful that a jury who would have been completely aware of her historical powers and duties would have branded John Moore and Tanner Mansell as a criminal for their misguided attempt to fulfill a civic duty as a criminal. It is unlikely that Watts Fitzgerald Moore and Mansell would have been charged if he had to try the case before a sixth change in change: that is, a jury who became an undisputed authority to satisfy itself against the evidence against evidence if the judiciary is necessary. But since modern judges have effectively canceled power to abolish power, good -hearted people like Moore and Mansell will continue to feel the anger of the system.

The murders of the Jewish Museum are the result of the left normalizing violence

Despite Moores and Mansell's clear lack of malicious intent and their absence of personal prize, a jury was reluctantly convicted. Similarly, the eleventh circle, in which judge Lagoa was unanimous, was unanimous, despite the obvious reservations of Lagoa.

When good intentions have met with an iron fist, the public loses confidence in our criminal justice system. A system that cannot distinguish between criminal intentions and actions that were born by a real, albeit false belief in good, does not deserve our trust or support. The Supreme Court must intervene to ensure that well -intentioned actions are not punished by a government that exerts its power with such breathtaking disregard for common sense. The integrity of our judicial system depends on balance.

Mike Fox is a legal scholarship holder of the Cato Institute project on criminal justice.