That is not true.

You do not need a law stating what is "attempted murder" vs "manslaughter". That is all decided by a jury of your peers; just like the constitution promises US citizens.

Like wise; we do not need a law that says "1% mercury is fine; but 2% is too much".

I think your views about environmental law are just wrong. I'm going to get a lawyer in here later to comment (IC).

Ok

"You do not need a law stating what is "attempted murder" vs "manslaughter". That is all decided by a jury of your peers; just like the constitution promises US citizens."

And that is just plain wrong. The law DEFINES attempted murder and manslaughter as distinct crimes. The jury's task is to decide form available evidence whether a particular act fits one description or the other.

That is what I mean; my wording is not ideal.

It is thus also up to the jury to decide whether the "mercury level" is sufficient to be a crime as well; and what crime.

The but just as criminal law defines what is a crime, so does environmental law define the threshhold between permissible and impermissible degrees of pollution. The task of a jury would be to decide whether in a particular case those limits were exceeded. A court or a jury has no power or competency to SET limits on acceptable levels of pollution.

dead your view on environmental regulations is rather shortsighted. Nuisance laws continue to fail as they always have in properly limiting environmental damage, much of this failure comes from it being hard to prove in a court room what the actual harm is. This comes from the fact that the harm is to a public good most often and not actually an individual. Now I am not some environmental justice nut, but it is true that often those that are harmed by pollution are the lower classes as they have very little economic mobility or means to hire people to file suit against those being harmed, most of the EJ crowd could walk of a short pier though in my opinion since they tend to go about things so poorly. I think 99% of our environmental regulations are poorly written and fail at much at what they want to accomplish because they so often take a command and control approach.

That "level" is already on the books; it is the level that produces harm. Precedent of previous cases and/or expert witnesses is what establishes these levels on a case by case bases; not congress. The plaintiff must accuse the defendant of passing the level sufficient to cause harm; and then prove it in the court system.

Sam, I understand where you are coming from but I think it is your view that is short sighted instead. Sure the burden of proof is on the plaintiff and sure this is a bigger burden on poor people then non-poor people; but the fact still remains that the only way of providing a true system of justice is for citizens to have a trial of peers; not guilt to be decided by politicians and back room deals.

For example; it is exactly your theory that also makes possible the Drug War. If the US had kept with the system as it was intended then victim-less crimes would not be prosecuted because their is no plaintiff (no one is claiming harm; lest the drug user is suing himself?).

So you say I'm being short sighted; but look at the world we live in now; it is the result of these policies you are talking about.