Social-order crimes

Social-order Crimes
Student’s Name
Institution Affiliation
Environmental crime is the violation of environmental law and regulation intentionally, recklessly and neglectfully. These laws and regulation can be violated at different stages for example when generating, treating, transporting or disposing of wastes as well as crimes against other components of the environmental like animals. In Michigan, one important basis for criminal prosecution of crimes against the environment is the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA) (Finkelman, Hershock, & Taylor, 2006). Besides summarizing this statute, elements that proof its violation are also discussed, not to mention case example showing its violation. Lastly, it is important that criminal justice professionals understand the legal and social parameter of this statute as they conduct the investigation.
Part 17 of the NREPA, MCL 324.1701-.1706, is the Michigan’s Environmental Protection Act. It is a part of the statute that authorizes the court to put a stop to conducts that harm the environment based on proof presented in a lawsuit. Notably, this is a statute that enables private parties to protect the environment they same way they have always protected property and contract rights (Clifford, 1998). As a matter of facts, this statute is a modification of the traditional belief that only public agencies protect the environment. Unlike most other statutes, this one does not necessarily standardize through a governmental command-and-control scheme.

Rather, the statute prevents agencies from authorizing conduct that causes harm to the air, water, or other natural resources. For this reason, a defendant is allowed to declare an affirmative defense that, “there lacks any feasible and prudent alternative” if that is the case.
Courts are authorized by the statute to grant declaratory or equity relief, for the imposition of condition on the accused for environmental protection for the purpose of remanding a case to suitable executive proceedings. It also forbids administrative agency approval of conduct that leads to pollution, impairment or destruction of the environment if a feasible or prudent alternative exists (Clifford, 1998). Every violation of a statute must be evaluated using the standard that is suitable to the violation. For instance, drainage of wetlands that may cause harm to unique vegetation as well as put stress on the portion of a wetland left behind is a violation of the MEPA statute under the portage factor (Hill, 2014). Before a deciding whether an action is a violation of the statute, portage requires the court to evaluate the environmental condition before the proposed action, evaluate the effect that the action has on the environment, and whether the proposed action has an effect on the flora and fauna or other natural possessions.
In Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinated Committee v. Atomic Energy Commission (1972) case, the court was asked to reassess rules propagated by the Atomic Energy Act on NREPA implementation. The rules required applicants for construction consents and licenses for the preparation of their own environmental reports (Hill, 2014). The EAC’s regulatory staff was also required to prepare a detailed statement of environmental costs, remuneration, and alternatives. However, the rules set limits on the way to consider the environmental issues in the decision-making process of the Commission.
FINDINGS: being among the first cases to be interpreted by NEPA, this case set a tone for the other subsequent NEPA cases. Some very important points regarding compliance with the NEPA statutes were made. First, the statute has a flexible section 101 in its general substantive policy. The section has enough room for a responsible exercise of judgment and, therefore, scrupulous substantive results in particular difficult occurrences may not be required (Government, 2009). NEPA and its substituent state statutes make protection of the environment a part of every federal agency and department’s mandate. Also from the case, it is clear that the statute ensures balance of environmental issues with other mandates. The greatest importance of this statute according to the case is that it requires all the agencies to consider environmental issues the same way other matters within the mandates are considered.
The enforcement of the state and federal environmental laws is an important part of human health and environment protection. For this reason, every criminal justice professional should be committed to pursuing both criminal and civil enforcement actions (Government, 2009). It is also important to ensure compliance with the laws and also recover cleanup response expenses. One reason why we preserve the environment is that it is provided to us and sustain us. The fact that most environmental crimes involve intentional violation of laws is enough reason for criminal justice professionals to understand how to deal with different crimes. These professionals, with the help of different federal and state statutes, should be responsible enough to carry out the regulations that are set forth. They should also be diverse enough to help in promulgation of additional regulations.
In summary, the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA) is a very important basis for criminal prosecution of crimes against the environment in Michigan. It is a statute that prevents agencies from authorizing conduct that causes harm to the air, water, or other natural resources as certified by the Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinated Committee v. Atomic Energy Commission (1972) case (Finkelman, Hershock, & Taylor, 2006). Therefore, every criminal justice professional ought to be dedicated to pursuing both criminal and civil enforcement action.
References
Clifford, M. (1998). Environmental crime : enforcement, policy, and social responsibility. Gaithersburg, Md: Aspen Publishers.
Finkelman, P., Hershock, M. & Taylor, C. (2006). The history of Michigan law. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press.
Government. (2009). Code of federal regulations, title 40, protection of environment, part 52 (sec. 52.1018-end. Place of publication not identified: U S Govt. Printing Office.
Hill, B. (2014). Environmental Justice. City: Environmental Law Institute.