Clean Water Act Case Study
1. Why does the court require for criminal intent under the Clean Water Act?
The court requires for criminal intent under the Clean Water Act that there must be proof that the action was intended in order for it to be considered guilty of the crime. There has to be proof of “knowingly of discharging a pollutant into navigable waters without a permit, knowingly operating danger through a pollutant, and knowingly operating a source in violation of pretreatment requirement” (253). There has to be an actual intention of wanting to harm someone or something from his intentions as well as him knowing what he was was actually doing.
2. Of what significance is Jewel McCoy’s testimony? Mr. Ahmad’s testimony?
McCoy’s testimony is significant because Ms. McCoy alerted Mr. Ahmad of the problem and she offered her services. When Mr. Ahmad asked what happened of he retracted the water himself, she informed him that it was dangerous and illegal and Mr. Ahmad responded saying, “well, if I don’t get caught, what then?” (253). Mr. Ahmad’s testimony was that he wasn’t aware that by renting a handheld motorized water pump to extract the water and using to extract the water there was a possibility of him extracting gasoline instead. He testified that he thought he was extracting the water, not the gas. Therefore, he didn’t “meet the “knowingly” requirements” (253) that he was being accused of.
3. …show more content…
What is the difference between Knowledge of the law and knowledge of conduct?
Knowledge of the law is when you know exactly what the law is, but that doesn’t mean you’re going to know what actions/conducts apply to the law. Knowledge of conduct is when you know what you were doing, but didn’t necessarily know it was against the law. Therefore, you broke the law unintentionally. It ties to what is morals/ethics. Meaning what is considered right under the law, but it doesn’t mean it’s right in society’s
The court requires for criminal intent under the Clean Water Act that there must be proof that the action was intended in order for it to be considered guilty of the crime. There has to be proof of “knowingly of discharging a pollutant into navigable waters without a permit, knowingly operating danger through a pollutant, and knowingly operating a source in violation of pretreatment requirement” (253). There has to be an actual intention of wanting to harm someone or something from his intentions as well as him knowing what he was was actually doing.
2. Of what significance is Jewel McCoy’s testimony? Mr. Ahmad’s testimony?
McCoy’s testimony is significant because Ms. McCoy alerted Mr. Ahmad of the problem and she offered her services. When Mr. Ahmad asked what happened of he retracted the water himself, she informed him that it was dangerous and illegal and Mr. Ahmad responded saying, “well, if I don’t get caught, what then?” (253). Mr. Ahmad’s testimony was that he wasn’t aware that by renting a handheld motorized water pump to extract the water and using to extract the water there was a possibility of him extracting gasoline instead. He testified that he thought he was extracting the water, not the gas. Therefore, he didn’t “meet the “knowingly” requirements” (253) that he was being accused of.
3. …show more content…
What is the difference between Knowledge of the law and knowledge of conduct?
Knowledge of the law is when you know exactly what the law is, but that doesn’t mean you’re going to know what actions/conducts apply to the law. Knowledge of conduct is when you know what you were doing, but didn’t necessarily know it was against the law. Therefore, you broke the law unintentionally. It ties to what is morals/ethics. Meaning what is considered right under the law, but it doesn’t mean it’s right in society’s