American justice story - is this really true?

[Dahu]

In the lastest economist there’s an article about justice in America:

Rough justice

IN 2000 four Americans were charged with importing lobster tails in plastic bags rather than cardboard boxes, in violation of a Honduran regulation that Honduras no longer enforces. They had fallen foul of the Lacey Act, which bars Americans from breaking foreign rules when hunting or fishing. The original intent was to prevent Americans from, say, poaching elephants in Kenya. But it has been interpreted to mean that they must abide by every footling wildlife regulation on Earth. The lobstermen had no idea they were breaking the law. Yet three of them got eight years apiece. Two are still in jail.

Google doesn’t seem to add a lot more. But if the basic facts as stated here are true this is just awful. But I’m wondering if this is one of those stories that once you start digging you find there’s more to it.

[Hamlet]

United States v. McNab. That’s the 11th circuit opinion.

[Ravenman]

Not that this strikes me as a good reason for a lengthy prison stay, but it seems that there is more at issue than whether the lobsters were in paper or plastic. The lobsters harvested were also undersize, some were egg-carrying, and were not made available for inspection. It also appears that there were a lot of lobsters involved; not like someone made the mistake of bringing two lobsters back to the States in a Glad bag after a lovely stay at Sandals: Honduras.

But as to the overall gist of the Economist article, I largely agree with it.

[Rhythmdvl]

The lobster smuggling/mule ring is strongly linked to the underground castrada trade.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Rhythmdvl

The lobster smuggling/mule ring is strongly linked to the underground castrada trade.

Well, it shouldn’t be hard to get a few of them to sing.

[Simplicio]

@Ravenman

But as to the overall gist of the Economist article, I largely agree with it.

The Economist article is pretty embarrassing. They claim that the “paper vs plastic” issue was the only violation, but there’s actually a pretty long list of violations in the court case. And the article claims “The lobstermen had no idea they were breaking the law”, but the court found the opposite, that they knowingly broke the law. And their summary of the Lacy Act is incorrect as well, its not failure to follow foreign regulations, its importing goods into the US that were obtained by failing to follow regulations that is made illegal by the act.

I agree that we probably over-incarcerate in this country. But the article makes it sound like the lobstermen in question weren’t only given overly long sentences, but were basically innocent of doing anything wrong. Convicting the more-or-less innocent is a very different thing then giving the guilty longer then necessary jail-time. The opening paragraph not only is filled with errors, but by making the story sound more outrageous then it actually is, it obfuscates what the point of the article is.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

What Simplicio said. The Economist article makes it sound like their crime was akin to forgetting to declare $14.83 in interest income on their tax returns, but it’s more like claiming that a 2,000,000 square foot factory was their primary residence.