Endangered Species Act Research Paper
"Taking"
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), 16 U.S.C. § 1532(19) (2006).
- "The term 'take' means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct."
§ 1538 (a)(1)(B)
- "it is unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to . . . . take any such species within the United States or the territorial sea of the United State."
"Knowingly"
United States v. McKittrick, 142 F.3d 1170, 1177 (9th Cir. 1998).
- In 1978, Congress changed the wording of section 11 to reduce the standard for criminal violations from 'willfully' to 'knowingly.'
- It did this to make criminal violations of the act a general rather than a specific intent crime. …show more content…
This is reflected not only in the stated policies of the Act, but in literally every section of the statute.” Tennessee Valley Auth. v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 184, 98 S.Ct. 2279, 2297, 57 L.Ed.2d 117 (1978). Section eleven is no different. The legislative history of that section shows that Congress intended to make violations of its provisions a general intent crime. Thus, it is sufficient that Nguyen knew that he was in possession of a turtle. The government was not required to prove that Nguyen knew that this turtle is a threatened species or that it is illegal to transport or import …show more content…
To the extent that the language or history of s 209 is uncertain, this “time honored interpretative guideline” serves to ensure both that there is fair warning of the boundaries of criminal conduct and that legislatures, not courts, define criminal liability.
108 L.Ed.2d 132, 140 (1990). The rule of lenity was discussed more fully by the Supreme Court in a subsequent case, Moskal v. United States, 111 S. Ct. 461, 112 L.Ed.2d 449, 59 U.S.L.W. 4025
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), 16 U.S.C. § 1532(19) (2006).
- "The term 'take' means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct."
§ 1538 (a)(1)(B)
- "it is unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to . . . . take any such species within the United States or the territorial sea of the United State."
"Knowingly"
United States v. McKittrick, 142 F.3d 1170, 1177 (9th Cir. 1998).
- In 1978, Congress changed the wording of section 11 to reduce the standard for criminal violations from 'willfully' to 'knowingly.'
- It did this to make criminal violations of the act a general rather than a specific intent crime. …show more content…
This is reflected not only in the stated policies of the Act, but in literally every section of the statute.” Tennessee Valley Auth. v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 184, 98 S.Ct. 2279, 2297, 57 L.Ed.2d 117 (1978). Section eleven is no different. The legislative history of that section shows that Congress intended to make violations of its provisions a general intent crime. Thus, it is sufficient that Nguyen knew that he was in possession of a turtle. The government was not required to prove that Nguyen knew that this turtle is a threatened species or that it is illegal to transport or import …show more content…
To the extent that the language or history of s 209 is uncertain, this “time honored interpretative guideline” serves to ensure both that there is fair warning of the boundaries of criminal conduct and that legislatures, not courts, define criminal liability.
108 L.Ed.2d 132, 140 (1990). The rule of lenity was discussed more fully by the Supreme Court in a subsequent case, Moskal v. United States, 111 S. Ct. 461, 112 L.Ed.2d 449, 59 U.S.L.W. 4025