Advertisement - Click to support our sponsors.
Editorials
Tuesday, June 27, 2000Judge’s fishing order
may kill local industryHAWAII'S fishing industry just lost the lobster season this year as a result of a federal agency's decision that a ban is needed to help save the Hawaiian monk seal, which feeds on lobster.The issue: A federal district judge has ordered the placement of federal observers on every boat in Hawaii's longline fishing fleet.
Now it has taken another blow that could be even more devastating. Federal District Judge David Ezra has ordered that within 30 days every boat in Hawaii's longline fishing fleet must carry a federal observer. Anything less than 100 percent compliance would mean suspension of all longline fishing.
But a fishing industry spokesman said it's impossible to find enough trained observers to comply with the order -- 115, one for each boat. There are only two trained observers in Hawaii, fishermen say, and there may not be 115 in the whole country.
Yesterday Ezra said he will consider up to a 180-day extension of the time for the industry to comply with the observer requirements. Rep. Patsy Mink said legislation to fund an observer program is under consideration in Congress. She said a House committee approved the hiring of new observers for Hawaii, including 12 observers laid off for lack of money. The bill would require hiring a minimum of 130 observers.
The ruling, which was an expansion of one issued by Ezra last November severely restricting the ocean areas open to longline fishing, is intended to protect endangered sea turtles as required by federal law. Longline fishing operations have hooked leatherback, Pacific green sea turtles and other species although some fishermen claim this rarely happens.
The industry is warning that Ezra's decision, if it stands, would destroy a $165 million-a-year industry supporting 2,000 jobs.
There would also be a much broader impact. Hawaii consumers could expect to pay substantially higher prices for frozen imported fish because there would be a shortage of fresh tuna, swordfish and striped marlin. In addition to paying more for frozen fish, the many consumers who prefer fresh fish would find it difficult to obtain.
The ruling affects only the local industry, which is a small part of the entire Pacific longline industry. Consequently it is unclear that the ban, although draconian, would achieve its purpose.
There seems to be a consensus on the need for stronger measures to protect endangered turtle species. However, the steps initially ordered by the judge seem unreasonable in terms of the difficulty of achieving compliance and the probable effect on the local fishing industry if it is unable to comply. Ezra's offer to consider modifying his order -- in effect conceding that he might have gone too far -- could be helpful but it is still not clear whether the fishing industry could survive under these conditions.
Miranda warning
THE Constitution prohibits authorities from forcing a suspect in a criminal case to be "a witness against himself," and the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision in Miranda vs. Arizona assures that right. The high court's reaffirmation of that right leaves Miranda warnings intact and should end attempts by some law-enforcement agencies to use in court confessions obtained in defiance of that right.
Two years after the 1966 Miranda decision, Congress approved a law allowing any confession to be "admissible in evidence if it is voluntarily given," even a confession given in the absence of a Miranda warning. The law was aimed at reversing the Supreme Court's ruling, which cannot be done without a constitutional amendment.
The Justice Department in every administration since then has regarded the 1968 law as unconstitutional. It took a panel of judges in the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals -- on its own -- to erroneously accept it.
The case involved a man who had made several incriminating statements to FBI agents in Virginia after being arrested and charged with bank robbery, but told belatedly of his right against self-incrimination.
The trial judge suppressed his confession as violating the Miranda decision, but a dispute arose over the timing of the suspect's signing of a confession. The appeals court overturned the trial judge's ruling but not on the basis of its timing.
The peculiar scenario before the Supreme Court consisted of both the defense and prosecution arguing against the Fourth Circuit's ruling. The appeals court had to appoint a law professor to argue its own position. Everyone except the appellate panel seemed to realize that Congress cannot reverse the Supreme Court, so the only argument the professor could make was that the Supreme Court should reverse itself.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who authored the 7-2 ruling, was appropriately emphatic in rejecting such a notion. "Miranda has become embedded in routine police practice to a point where the warnings have become part of our national culture," Rehnquist wrote. "Miranda announced a constitutional rule that Congress may not supersede legislatively. We decline to overrule Miranda ourselves."
The application of the Miranda decision is likely to be argued in courts as long as the Constitution survives. The latest word from the Supreme Court about the decision itself should be the last.
Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited PartnershipRupert E. Phillips, CEO
John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher
David Shapiro, Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor
