Poacher accused of ‘ravaging the ocean' off Canada gets prison time, records show
Scott Steer, of Gabriola Island, faced eight charges including fishing in a closed area without a license, selling illegally harvested sea cucumbers and breaching an order prohibiting him from possessing fishing vessels, according to July 25 sentencing records from British Columbia Supreme Court Justice David Crerar.
According to court records, Steer has the 'longest record of Fisheries Act violations in Canadian history,' with 34 convictions dating back to 2008 — but authorities say his non-compliance began even earlier.
'Steer considers himself unbound by laws,' Crerar said, adding that he fully recognized 'and even exulted in the criminality of his actions.'
Steer's attorney Kevin Westell told McClatchy News in an email July 30 that Steer is 'incredibly disappointed with the result' of the sentencing.
'We are currently in the process of reviewing the trial and sentencing decisions from the perspective of a potential appeal. We have 30 days from the date of the sentencing decision to file a notice of appeal and plan to use the time constructively,' Westell said.
Through a 'sham' corporation, Steer received more than CA$1 million through his illegal sea cucumber sales — an amount that is based on known payments from just one entity, officials said. 'Other revenues, from other buyers, are unknown,' Crerar said. 'The trial evidence indicated that revenues were likely significantly more.'
In 2019, between October and December alone, Steer harvested 97,722 pounds of sea cucumbers under illegally-obtained licenses and 'harvested thousands of pounds of additional sea cucumbers' without any license at all, court records show.
Steer's previous violations include poaching other marine life, including catching over 1,000 pounds of crab 'under cover of darkness' in Vancouver Harbor, which is permanently closed for crab harvesting, court records show.
'The only way to stop Mr Steer from ravaging the ocean and flouting the law and court orders is to move him far from the sea for a long period of time,' Crerar said in sentencing records.
In many cultures, sea cucumbers are considered a delicacy and are often used in traditional medicine.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
What Are Son of Sam Laws? Unpacking the Rules That David Berkowitz Inspired (and How They Relate to the Idaho College Murders)
Son of Sam laws were initially written to prevent criminals from profiting off their offenses — but their constitutionality has come into question The Son of Sam, otherwise known as David Berkowitz, murdered six people and injured 11 during his New York City shooting spree between 1976 and 1977. In the new Netflix docuseries Conversations With a Killer: The Son of Sam Tapes, out July 30, the serial killer details his mindset when he began murdering strangers, including what led him to write letters to the press and police in a dark cat-and-mouse game until he was finally caught in August 1977. Berkowitz reportedly enjoyed the attention he got from the media and sought to get paid for a book telling his side of the story. Lawmakers in New York tried to prevent Berkowitz and other convicts from profiting off of their crimes, leading them to pass the Son of Sam law in 1977 before the .44 Caliber Killer had a chance to collect a dime from his crimes. Berkowitz was sentenced to 25 years to life for each murder he committed. Other states enacted similar laws, but the Supreme Court delivered a judgment nearly 15 years later that killed or forced changes to many Son of Sam laws nationwide. Here is everything to know about the Son of Sam laws. What is a Son of Sam law? New York enacted the original Son of Sam law in 1977 in an effort to prevent Berkowitz and other criminals from profiting off of their crimes in the form of movie, TV, book and other media deals, according to The New York Times. In the 1977 law, victims were permitted to sue to receive any proceeds that convicted criminals received from paid media, with a Crime Victims Board able to seize the proceeds until the lawsuits were settled. Under the first Son of Sam law, victims could sue within three years from the time a criminal received payment for media related to their offenses. At the time, there was also a statute of limitations of seven years from the time the crime was committed to file a lawsuit. Why is it called the Son of Sam law? The Son of Sam law got its name from Berkowitz's murder spree from 1976 through 1977. The serial killer used the alias — derived from the name of his neighbor, Sam Carr, and his dog Harvey — in his letters to reporters and law enforcement. Berkowitz later alleged that he heard demons speaking to him through Harvey, a claim he later said he made for attention and to avoid taking accountability for the damage and trauma he caused. The New York Times reported that Berkowitz and his team were selling a book that could make between $1 million and $10 million, of which Berkowitz would receive one-third. The killer and his team were reportedly also considering selling movie rights, but Berkowitz denied these claims. How many states have Son of Sam laws? Around 40 states have Son of Sam laws, though their enforcement and the details in each vary. For example, California's former Son of Sam law stated that only people convicted of felonies were barred from profiting off of their stories and rights to film, TV, books and other media; and it specified that works with only "passing mention of the felony, as in a footnote or bibliography" were exempt. The California Supreme Court, though, struck down their Son of Sam law in 2002 for infringing upon the First Amendment, per Reporters Committee. Is the Son of Sam law unconstitutional? In 1991, the Supreme Court ruled that New York's 1977 Son of Sam law was unconstitutional in the case Simon & Schuster v. Members of the New York Crime Victims Board. The publishers of the book Wiseguy: Life in a Mafia Family by Henry Hill and Nicholas Pileggi (which would later be adapted into Martin Scorsese's acclaimed film Goodfellas) sued the Victims Board, arguing that the law made authors and editors self-censor their books. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor found in her opinion that the Son of Sam law violated the First Amendment, noting that it was "presumptively inconsistent with the First Amendment if it imposes a financial burden on speakers because of the content of their speech." She argued that under the Son of Sam law, as it was written and enacted in 1977, books like The Autobiography of Malcolm X and Henry David Thoreau's Civil Disobedience could see their proceeds not go to their respective authors. What happened to the Son of Sam law in New York? The original Son of Sam law in New York was amended in 2001 to allow victims to sue criminals not just for profits from movie, TV and book deals, but for virtually any income the convicts received while incarcerated, including lottery winnings, inheritance or stock market earnings, per The New York Times. The amended law also extended the statute of limitations from seven to 10 years from the date of the crimes. In December 2023, CBS News reported that New York lawmakers sought to amend the Son of Sam law again to also apply to spouses and relatives of criminals after the Gilgo Beach serial killer suspect Rex Heuermann's estranged wife, Asa Ellerup, was reportedly paid seven figures from Peacock when she appeared in a documentary. Peacock said in a statement at the time that Ellerup "was not paid for her participation, but was paid a licensing fee for use of her archive materials." Peacock also noted that the funds were not permitted to be given to Heuermann or his criminal defense. The proposed amended law would also require any company paying a criminal's relatives or spouses $10,000 or more to notify the New York State Office of Victim Services, which would in turn notify victims, Newsday reported. Does Idaho have a Son of Sam law? Idaho does not have a specific Son of Sam law, a point that the judge in the University of Idaho murder trial alluded to in his sentencing of Bryan Kohberger, per the Independent. Kohberger stabbed Madison Mogen, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin to death in their shared home in November 2022. He pleaded guilty to the quadruple murder three weeks before his trial was set to begin in exchange for avoiding the death penalty and received four life sentences. "I know there has been concern about him collaborating on books, or movies, or other media projects, and I truly hope that someone does not stoop to affording him this spotlight that he desires, in the name of clicks, royalties, or profits," Judge Steven Hippler said at Kohberger's sentencing hearing. "In my view, the time has now come to end Mr. Kohberger's 15 minutes of fame." Judge Hippler also encouraged the victims' loved ones and the public to not give Kohberger the notoriety that he suspected the killer wanted. "The need to know what is inherently not understandable makes us dependent upon the defendant to provide us with a reason, and that gives him the spotlight, the attention and the power he appears to crave," Hippler said. "Yet, even if I could force him to speak, which legally I cannot, how could anyone ever be assured that what he speaks is the truth?" Read the original article on People
USA Today
5 hours ago
- USA Today
From marginal religious groups to mainstream Christians: Why some see a shift in Supreme Court cases
The court's first case involving a Rastafarian highlights the role smaller religious groups have played in the court's history, even as more cases come from mainstream Christian groups. WASHINGTON – There have been no shortage of religious groups seeking help from the Supreme Court in recent years, including three cases last term that involved the Catholic Church. But the religion at the center of a case set for after the summer is not nearly as well represented in the population - or in the courtroom. In fact, it appears to be the first time the Supreme Court will hear an appeal from a Rastafarian. Damon Landor said his religious rights were violated when his dreadlocks were forcibly shaved by Louisiana prison guards. More: Supreme Court to decide if prison officials can be sued over inmates' religious rights Handcuffed to a chair while his dreadlocks were shaved off Landor had shown prison officials a copy of a court ruling that dreadlocks grown for religious reasons should be accommodated. But an intake guard threw the ruling in the trash and Landor was handcuffed to a chair while his knee-length locks were shaved off. The justices will decide whether Landor can sue the guards for compensation under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Landor – whose appeal was backed by more than 30 religious groups and the Justice Department − argues that monetary damages are often the only way to hold prison officials accountable when religious rights are violated. Legal experts on religion cases expect the court will side with the Rastafarian. That would be consistent not just with the high success rate of appeals the court agrees to hear from religious people, but also with the role smaller religious groups have played in the court's history. Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists Most of the religious cases Richard Garnett teaches in his classes at the University of Notre Dame Law School involve smaller religious communities, including Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists. 'The story of religious freedom in America has developed through cases involving members of minority religions,' Garnett said. Other court watchers, however, say that was more true in the past than it is now. 'That's kind of a legacy view,' said Carl Esbeck, an expert on religious liberty at the University of Missouri School of Law. In fact, a 2022 study found that; since 2005, the winning religion in most Supreme Court religious cases was a mainstream Christian organization. In the past, by contrast, pro-religion outcomes more frequently favored minority or marginal religious organizations, according to the analysis by Lee Epstein at Washington University in St. Louis and Eric Posner of the University of Chicago Law School. 'The religion clauses of the First Amendment were once understood to provide modest but meaningful protection for non-mainstream religions from discrimination by governments that favored mainstream Christian organizations, practices, or values,' they wrote. Similarly, traditionalist Christians – such as orthodox Catholics and Baptists – had been significantly less successful than other religious groups in getting accommodations from lower federal courts from 1986 to 1995, according to a study by Michael Heise of Cornell Law School and Gregory Sisk of the University of St. Thomas School of Law. But from 2006 to 2015, their disadvantage 'appeared to fade into statistical insignificance,' they wrote in 2022. The Supreme Court, they said, 'appears to be setting the stage for a more equitable and expansive protection of religious liberty.' Colorado and the gay wedding cake debate Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, agrees that the court has taken an expansive view of religious liberty protections. But he says it hasn't always been equitable. In 2018, the court said Colorado had shown "religious hostility" to a baker who didn't want to make a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple. More: How a Supreme Court case about a gay couple's wedding cake got caught up in Israeli judicial reform But that same month, Mach said, the court upheld President Donald Trump's travel ban 'even in the face of Trump's repeated unambiguous statements condemning Islam and Muslims.' More broadly, he said, the court's 'general hostility to the separation of church and state' erodes protections for minority groups promised by the First Amendment's prohibition against the government favoring a specific religion or favoring religion in general. 'Built into that structure is necessarily a protection against the imposition by the majority of its favored religious doctrine,' he said. In February, President Donald Trump signed an executive order aimed at 'Eradicating anti-Christian Bias' and calling on agencies to eliminate the "anti-Christian weaponization of government." The administration cited that order when telling federal employees in a July 28 memo they may discuss and promote their religious beliefs in the workplace. More: Supreme Court blocks Catholic charter school in big setback for religion advocates Ruling for Amish built on to benefit other religions In June, the Supreme Court built upon a 1972 ruling for the Amish as it affirmed the religious rights of parents to remove their elementary school children from class when storybooks with LGBTQ+ characters are being used. When deciding more than 50 years ago that Amish parents did not have to keep their children in school until age 16 as Wisconsin required, the court said those parents had an argument 'that probably few other religious groups or sects could make.' But Justice Samuel Alito left no doubt about the broader significance of Wisconsin v. Yoder in the 6-3 opinion he authored in June that sided with parents from a variety of religious backgrounds − including Roman Catholic but also Muslim, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and other faiths − who objected to the LGBTQ+ storybooks used in Maryland school district. 'Yoder is an important precedent of this Court, and it cannot be breezily dismissed as a special exception granted to one particular religious minority,' Alito wrote. More: Supreme Court sides with Maryland parents who want to avoid LGBTQ+ books in public schools In a 2020 speech to the conservative Federalist Society, Alito had warned that 'religious liberty is in danger of becoming a second-class right.' He listed examples of cases he'd judged about religious minorities, including the rights of Muslim police officers to have beards, of a Jewish prisoner to organize a Torah study group and whether a Native American could keep a bear for religious services. The baker who didn't want to make a cake for a same-sex wedding and Catholic nuns who objected to insurance coverage for contraceptives 'deserve no less protection,' Alito said about more recent cases. More: Supreme Court sides with Catholic Charities in case about tax exemptions and religion `Clear pattern of preference for religious groups' Cornell Law School Professor Nelson Tebbe said more of the claims about religious freedom started to come from mainstream majority Christian groups as political polarization increased and as the gay rights movement picked up speed. 'Suddenly, civil libertarian groups who had been on the side of minority religions…started to realize that civil rights laws could be vulnerable to religious attacks by conservative Christians and they started to get worried,' Tebbe said. As the court has shifted its approach, he said, the justices have both granted exemptions from regulations that burden religion as well as said government must treat religious groups no differently than secular organizations when providing public benefits − such as school vouchers. 'While both of those could be seen as understandable on their own terms, when you put them together, there's a clear pattern of preference for religious groups,' he said. 'It's a pretty dramatic moment in constitutional law in this area.' Garnett, the religious freedom expert at the University of Notre Dame Law School, said the court's decisions are a reflection of the ongoing debate over how much accommodation should be given in a country with diverse religious views. 'So the fact that those cases are coming up isn't because the court sort of shifted to protecting majority groups,' he said. 'It's because events on the ground shifted. And the nature of the controversies that are served up are different.'
Hamilton Spectator
8 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
DeSantis set a Florida record for executions. It's driving a national increase
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — In the final moments of a life defined by violence, 60-year-old Edward Zakrzewski thanked the people of Florida for killing him 'in the most cold, calculated, clean, humane, efficient way possible,' breathing deeply as a lethal drug cocktail coursed through his veins. With his last breath, strapped to a gurney inside a state prison's death chamber, Zakrzewski paid what Florida had deemed was his debt to society and became the 27th person put to death in the U.S. so far this year, the highest number in a decade. Under Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis , Florida has executed nine people in 2025 , more than than any other state , and set a new state record, with DeSantis overseeing more executions in a single year than any other Florida governor since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976. Across the country, more people have been put to death in the first seven months of this year than in all of 2024 . Florida's increase is helping put the U.S. on track to surpass 2015's total of 28 executions. And the number of executions is expected to keep climbing. Nine more people are scheduled to be put to death in seven states during the remainder of 2025. Florida drives a national increase in executions After the Supreme Court lifted its ban on capital punishment in the '70s, executions steadily increased, peaking in 1999 at 98 deaths. Since then, they had been dropping — in part due to legal battles, a shortage of lethal injection drugs, and declining public support for capital punishment, which has prompted a majority of states to either pause or abolish it altogether. The ratcheting up after this yearslong decline comes as Republican President Donald Trump has urged prosecutors to aggressively seek the death penalty and as some GOP-controlled state legislatures have pushed to expand the category of crimes punishable by death and the methods used to carry out executions . John Blume, director of the Cornell Death Penalty Project, says the uptick in executions doesn't appear to be linked to a change in public support for the death penalty or an increase in the rate of death sentences, but is rather a function of the discretion of state governors. 'The most cynical view would be: It seems to matter to the president, so it matters to them,' Blume said of the governors. 'The only appropriate punishment' In response to questions from The Associated Press, a spokesperson for DeSantis pointed to statements the governor made at a press conference in May, saying he takes capital cases 'very seriously.' 'There are some crimes that are just so horrific, the only appropriate punishment is the death penalty,' DeSantis said, adding: 'these are the worst of the worst.' Julie Andrew expressed relief after witnessing the April execution of the man who killed her sister in the Florida Keys in 2000. 'It's done,' she said. 'My heart felt lighter and I can breathe again.' The governor's office did not respond to questions about why the governor is increasing the pace of executions now and whether Trump's policies are playing a role. Deciding who lives and who dies Little is publicly known about how the governor decides whose death warrant to sign and when, a process critics have called 'secretive' and 'arbitrary.' According to the Florida Department of Corrections, there are 266 people currently on death row, including two men in their 80s, both of whom have been awaiting their court-ordered fate for more than 40 years. Speaking at the press conference in May, DeSantis said it's his 'obligation' to oversee executions, which he hopes provide 'some closure' to victims' families. 'Any time we go forward, I'm convinced that not only was the verdict correct, but that this punishment is absolutely appropriate under the circumstances,' DeSantis said. US ranks alongside Iran and Saudi Arabia for executions For years, the U.S. has ranked alongside Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Egypt as among the countries carrying out the highest number of confirmed executions. China is thought to execute more of its citizens than any other nation, although the exact totals are considered a state secret, according to the non-profit Death Penalty Information Center. Robin Maher, the center's executive director, says elected officials in the U.S. have long used the death penalty as a 'political tool,' adding it's 'a way of embellishing their own tough-on-crime credentials.' Florida executions vary year to year In 2024, DeSantis signed one death warrant. From 2020-2022, Florida didn't carry out a single execution. In 2023, DeSantis oversaw six — the highest number during his time in office until this year. 2023 was also the year the governor challenged Trump for the Republican presidential nomination. There are a number of reasons why the rate of executions may vary from one administration to the next, said Mark Schlakman, an attorney and Florida State University professor who advised then-governor Lawton Chiles on the death penalty. The availability of staff resources, the tempo of lengthy legal appeals, and court challenges against the death penalty itself can all play a role, Schlakman said, as well as a governor's 'sensibilities.' 'The one person who can stop this' One execution after another, opponents of the death penalty hold vigils in the Florida capitol, outside the governor's mansion, and near the state prison that houses the death chamber, as people of faith across the state pray for mercy, healing and justice. Suzanne Printy, a volunteer with the group Floridians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, has hand-delivered thousands of petitions to DeSantis' office, but says they seem to have no effect. Recently, DeSantis signed death warrants for two more men scheduled to die later this month. Still, Printy keeps praying. 'He's the one person who can stop this,' she said. ___ Kate Payne is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
