Comment by DebtDeflation
3 days ago
>It's never made sense to me, but the standard explanation is that because they aren't accusing a person (the owner of the money), but only accusing an inanimate object
That is correct, but you need to understand the context. It originated in the 1600s as a way for maritime law to deal with pirate/smuggler ships who were operating in international waters, not flying the flag of any nation, and with no registered owner. Charging the ship and its contents with the crime rather than an unknown individual made sense in that context. Applying it to a car registered in the United States, driving down a highway in the United States, and being driven by a US citizen makes absolutely no sense because standard law can and should deal with that situation.
But when you fly people who clearly have an owner (themself) to another country and they don't have a passport, the country holds the airline accountable.
Why not hold the captain of the ship responsible for loading illegal cargo? Isn't this the whole point of a ship's manifest, to record what's on the ship? Like extend it slightly more to also record the legality.
If you never want to get captains to be willing to sail to your ports again… also, manifests can be wrong, or insufficiently descriptive. Manifest may accurately say a container is full of machine parts. But neglect to mention the machine they are parts of is a machine gun.
Airlines seem to have a policy of passports need to be valid (not expire) for six months after the trip.
Our daughter was going overseas and we had to get her passport renewed because it would expire 3 months after she would have gotten home. The country was fine with that but there was a chance that she would show up at the airport and the airline would not allow her to board because it was less than 6 months.
If the airline lets them fly and they're rejected, the airline has to get them back and the airline doesn't want to risk that.
> But when you fly people who clearly have an owner (themself) to another country and they don't have a passport, the country holds the airline accountable.
> Why not hold the captain of the ship responsible for loading illegal cargo? Isn't this the whole point of a ship's manifest, to record what's on the ship? Like extend it slightly more to also record the legality.
Just because an airline lets you fly somewhere, you can still be rejected at the other end. I think it's a bit much to expect every captain to know the legality of everything in their hold, to all destinations, and enforce that.
> I think it's a bit much to expect every captain to know the legality of everything in their hold, to all destinations, and enforce that.
Is it too much to ask? They should be offloading that to whomever they're getting the cargo from and whomever they're getting their cargo from should have a valid import/export license which means they're willing to go through the steps to ship cargo legally.
Even then that would imply some legal personhood on the part of the vessel and it's operations, much like a registered company.
To me it's a leap too far to assign it to a specific object. It has no ongoing operations, it's not a fluid, "living" thing.
But here we are. This is where a more modern supreme court ruling would come in handy I guess.
> This is where a more modern supreme court ruling would come in handy I guess
I'd hate to see how this modern supreme court rules. Odds are likely to be in favor of keeping this policy, especially if some of that money is used to buy an RV or fund fancy vacations