Because such broadly written laws are can easily be applied exactly as written and unequally. Your beginning the sentence with “probably” isn’t very reassuring.
Cruise ship anchor photographed on the reef
- Thread starter Drew Sailbum
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
Because such broadly written laws are can easily be applied exactly as written and unequally. Your beginning the sentence with “probably” isn’t very reassuring.
OP
Do you understand the concept of Intent that is an element of such prosecutions? Or the concept of Duress?
To successfully prosecute a case there would need to be showing of intent, or at least willful disregard, to record a conviction. If you run your boat into a reef because you cannot be bothered to ask the Port Authority where the safe boat channel is, then you show willful disregard and may be held liable.
As a general principle of UK law, Duress is a complete defense of actions taken under unlawful pressure or actions forced or compelled by the circumstances. It is similar to the doctrine of Necessity. If your boat is sinking and to save lives you run it aground and hit a reef then Duress/Necessity is a defense. The rationale is that such action is not wholly voluntary.
To successfully prosecute a case there would need to be showing of intent, or at least willful disregard, to record a conviction. If you run your boat into a reef because you cannot be bothered to ask the Port Authority where the safe boat channel is, then you show willful disregard and may be held liable.
As a general principle of UK law, Duress is a complete defense of actions taken under unlawful pressure or actions forced or compelled by the circumstances. It is similar to the doctrine of Necessity. If your boat is sinking and to save lives you run it aground and hit a reef then Duress/Necessity is a defense. The rationale is that such action is not wholly voluntary.
Unfortunately we have a history in the US of enforcing environmental laws in a much less enlightened manner if your assessment is entirely accurate. As a potential tourist, I am very uneasy about such heavy-handed mandates as summarized. There are plenty of places to dive that dont have such punitive sounding laws or even require that divers cant wear gloves.
Another important factor in the US is it is less about avoiding a successful prosecution than avoiding being prosecuted in the first place. You may not be behind bars but you can easily be financially ruined and lose years of your life spent in turmoil even when you win.
I would feel as bad as the next guy if my weightbelt slipped over the side and damaged some coral. However, Im not too comfortable being faced with potential prosecution and bearing the burden of proof in a foreign country.
AggieDiver
Contributor
Akimbo,
I don't think you have much to worry about. Carnival's ship dropped an anchor on the reef where they were directed to by Bodden, who is the pilot for the port. Neither Carnival nor Bodden seem to be the target of any enforcement efforts. There doesn't seem to be much will to prosecute anybody for reef damage.
I don't think you have much to worry about. Carnival's ship dropped an anchor on the reef where they were directed to by Bodden, who is the pilot for the port. Neither Carnival nor Bodden seem to be the target of any enforcement efforts. There doesn't seem to be much will to prosecute anybody for reef damage.
HalcyonDaze
Contributor
Looks like the DOE made their report public on March 5th: http://www.doe.ky/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Carnival-Magic-Anchor-Damage-Report-Public.pdf
AggieDiver
Contributor
Yeah...about what I expected. The money shot was that statement that criminal prosecution might be complicated. What they are really saying is that Carnival and Bodden own too many politicians to allow them to be prosecuted.
HalcyonDaze
Contributor
That, and some of the blame could be cast on the Port Authority. One arm of government prosecuting another gets messy.
AggieDiver
Contributor
Yeah, but that part is really a cop out to me. The Port authority has a pilot contractor (Bodden) specifically to make sure ships go where they are supposed to. If they wrote their contract with Bodden in such a way that they can't recover costs when they screw up and get it wrong, then whoever wrote the contract ought to be the one getting sued.
Doctorfish
Contributor
Nobody will get sued. The government in Cayman historically has had no interest in the environment whatsoever.
Just look at the garbage dump and the repeated fires, the massive development occurring all over, the golf courses with fertilizer run off, the increasing number of cruise ships every day of the week.
It's all about money, not conservation.
Luckily, they haven't ruined the Brac and Little Cayman yet.
Just look at the garbage dump and the repeated fires, the massive development occurring all over, the golf courses with fertilizer run off, the increasing number of cruise ships every day of the week.
It's all about money, not conservation.
Luckily, they haven't ruined the Brac and Little Cayman yet.
AggieDiver
Contributor
I agree. Back to my original point. There is a lot more opportunity for graft in the shipping business than in the environmental protection business. The cruise lines and shipping industry own way more politicians than the dive operators and therefore, it is in the interest of the politicians to make the lines of responsibility seem as vague and difficult to understand as possible, thereby making it unlikely that any of their "friends" will ever get sued for anything.
Similar threads
