Reference no: EM133273401

Nancy Black, a California marine biologist, captains a whale watching ship. She was with some watchers in 2005 when a member of her crew whistled at a nearby hump back whale, hoping the whale would linger. Meanwhile land one of Black's employees contacted a national oceanographic organization to see if the whistling was in fact harassment of a marine mammal -an environmental crime . Black provided a videotape of the incident slightly edited to show the whistling for the editing she was charged with a felony under the 1863 False Claims Act She was also charged with a federal crime involving the feeding of killer whales ( orcas ) having rigged an appa ratus that would stabilize a slab of blubber to better photo graph the orca while feeding on a dead gray whale . Since the charges were filed , Black has spent more than $100,000 in legal fees and could be sentenced to 20 years in prison.

Does this case represent the conflict or consensus model of justice?

Assume Black were to be convicted: Would the end justify the means? Conversely, would the means justify the end result (i.e., having such federal laws, compelling such exorbitant legal fees)?