[Tortoise and hare*] |
Reality and law are a bit like the hare and the tortoise. While the former
advances at breakneck speed, the other crawls forward at its own pace, seemingly
oblivious to time. The intersection of new reality
and antiquated law often requires courts to apply great creativity in applying
statutes whether in terms of scope or extension.
A curious example was the case of the woman recently sentenced to one year in
jail and ordered to pay 30,000 USD in restitution for entering a store in March
of 2021 and intentionally coughing, spitting on merchandise and yelling that she had the
Corona virus and people were going to die. She was drunk at the time and later regretted the incident but
these are sensitive times. See here for more details. The interesting aspect of this
case was that she was convicted of making bomb threats, a felony. I suppose the
charge of endangering public health would have also applied but probably
carried a lesser punishment. Given the fact that until now only governments had
been involved in biological weapons, it is not surprising that no statute
specific for intentional disease spreading. I would have to agree that telling people that they
would die of Corona is a quite a bomb threat.
An older threat is the Nigerian scam, which involves informing people by email that they have been awarded money in order to get them to reveal their bank
details. It is not an accident that that these scammers are generally not
physically located in the United States. The Mail Fraud Statute dates from the
late 19th century while the US Government enacted the Wire Fraud statue in the 1950's, both quite a while before the Internet and email.
However, they are written quite broadly. They require the use of mail or wire communication, the intent
to defraud and material deception. (For more details see here.) The courts have
found it quite easy to extend its provisions to email crime. After all, the
only difference is the letter e. US law is often written quite loosely
in order to cope with future changes and avoid the continuous need to amend laws.
A more complicated challenge arises when the law is specific but the
structural reality has changed. For example, when the US Constitution was
finally ratified with all its amendments in 1790, the British and, consequently,US, legal system consisted of two parallel systems applying common law and
equity, respectively. In overly simple terms the former could decree punishment
while the latter could issue injunctions. The 6th amendment to the
US Constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial for the former but not the
latter. Two changes occurred: the US and UK merged these
courts; and new modern crimes emerged. For example, when the SEC was formed to
regulate the stock market in 1934, it had the power to prosecute financial
crimes and demand both fines and injunctions. The issue of whether the
defendant is entitled to a jury trial has kept the US courts of appeal quite
busy. For example, in 2016, a Ninth Circuit Court opinion, in the case of U.S.
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Jensen, following precedence,
transposed the distinction to modern times and ruled that when a legal remedy
(civil fines) is involved, the right to a jury trial is relevant. See here for
more details. In other words,
they acted as if the trial had occurred in 1790. There are several other areas of law
where US judges act on the same basis.
So, while watching the speedy rabbit of reality may be fascinating in
its own way, observing the plodding legal system cope with reality is no less
captivating, albeit frustrating at time. I assume that other legal systems face
the same problem and cope with it in their own way. Law truly stretches the
mind.
* Add captions to picture help the blind access the Internet. Picture credit: Image by <a href="https://pixabay.com/users/stephenwheeler-23068626/?utm_source=link-attribution&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=image&utm_content=6570775">StephenWheeler</a> from <a href="https://pixabay.com/?utm_source=link-attribution&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=image&utm_content=6570775">Pixabay</a>
No comments:
Post a Comment