BLACKMUN, J., concurring 452 U.S. restitution rather than punishment, and the core criminal conduct, willful abandonment and continuing nonsupport, is markedly more difficult to redress once the offending parent leaves the jurisdiction. A restriction that reasonably discourages departure may therefore be justified as tailored to further the precise remedial objective of the criminal law. Significantly, however, the objective advanced here is not identical to the more general goal of improving the administration of criminal justice. The Court perhaps has this distinction in mind when it concludes, ante, at 422, that where departure "aggravates the consequences of conduct that is otherwise punishable," it may merit enhanced punishment. I doubt that a State constitutionally may impose greater penalties for all crimes simply because the accused leaves the jurisdiction. To hold otherwise ignores the availability of summary interstate transfer procedures under the Extradition Clause, and chills unacceptably the travel rights of the presumptively innocent citizen. For me, it also is noteworthy that appellee pleaded guilty to the crime of willful abandonment and subsequent departure from the State. The record gives no indication that appellee was anything but aware that his crime would become more serious once he left Georgia. Thus, the Court today need not decide the constitutionality of this statute as applied to a person of ordinary intelligence who had no knowledge, or reason to know, that the protected act of interstate travel would convert him from a misdemeanant into a felon. Cf. Lambert v. California, 355 U. S. 225 (1957). I concur in the judgment. Supplemental Decree UNITED STATES v. MAINE ET AL. (MASSACHUSETTS BOUNDARY CASE) ON JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF SUPPLEMENTAL DECREE No. 35, Orig. Decided March 17, 1975-Decree entered October 6, 1975Supplemental decree entered June 15, 1981 Supplemental decree entered. Opinion reported: 420 U. S. 515; decree reported: 423 U. S. 1. The Report of the Special Master is received and ordered filed. SUPPLEMENTAL DECREE The Court's Special Master having filed a Report recommending the entry of a supplemental decree for the purpose of defining with greater particularity the boundary line between the submerged lands of the United States and the submerged lands of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, as contemplated by the Court's Decree of October 6, 1975, 423 U. S. 1, and the Court's Order of June 29, 1977, 433 U. S. 917, appointing the Honorable Walter E. Hoffman as Special Master in this cause, and the United States and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts having stated their acquiescence in the recommendations of the said Report: IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The coastline of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, as that term is used in the Court's Decree herein dated October 6, 1975, shall be, in the area hereafter specified: (a) A straight line running southwesterly from a point on the mean low water line at Eastern Point on Cape Ann (approximately 42°34′45′′ N, 70°39′43′′ W on NOS Chart 13267, 18th Ed.) to a point on the mean low water line seaward of Strawberry Point (approximately 42°15′31′′ N, 70°46′05′′ W on the same NOS Chart), thence southeasterly along the line of ordinary mean low water (including closing lines across Scituate Harbor and the North River) to Brant Rock (approximately 42°05′29′′ N, 70°38′15′′ W on the same NOS Chart), thence a straight line running easterly to a point on the mean low water line at Race Point on Cape Cod (approximately 42°03′46′′ N, 70°14′51′′ W on the same NOS Chart); (b) A straight line running southeasterly from a point on the mean low water line at Gooseberry Neck (approximately 41°28′43′′ N, 71°02′05′′ W on NOS Chart 13218, 21st Ed.) to a point on the mean low water line on the southwestern extremity of Cuttyhunk Island (approximately 41°24′44′′ N, 70°57'07" W on the same NOS Chart). 2. The reference to the Special Master appointed by the Court on June 29, 1977, is continued in effect, under the terms of the Court's Order of that date, and he is directed to proceed with the cause, holding such further proceedings as may seem advisable until all remaining issues referred to him are ready for submission to the Court by his further report. 3. The Court retains jurisdiction to entertain such further proceedings, enter such orders, and issue such writs as may from time to time be deemed necessary or advisable to give proper force and effect to this decree or to effectuate the rights of the parties in the premises. JUSTICE MARSHALL took no part in the consideration or decision of this matter. Decree CALIFORNIA v. ARIZONA ET AL. ON JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF A DECREE No. 78, Orig. Leave to file complaint granted February 22, 1979Decree entered June 15, 1981 Decree entered. Opinion reported: 440 U. S. 59. The Report of the Special Master is received and ordered filed. DECREE The joint motion of plaintiff and defendants for entry of a decree having been submitted to the Court together with the Report of the Special Master recommending that the motion be granted, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Report of the Special Master is hereby approved, and the motion of plaintiff and defendants for entry of a decree is granted. 2. This decree determines ownership of certain portions of the bed of the former channel of the Colorado River. The decree does not relate to, nor does it have an effect upon, the political boundary between the State of California and the State of Arizona, which was set by congressionally approved compact in 1966 (Pub. L. No. 89-531, 80 Stat. 340). 3. The State of California is the owner in fee simple, by virtue of its sovereignty, of those lands in the bed of the former channel of the Colorado River more particularly described in Exhibit A to this decree. 4. The boundaries of the lands described in paragraph 3 above and in Exhibit A to this decree are permanent and fixed. 5. The State of Arizona and the United States of America, and each of them, have no right, title, estate, or lien, what ever, in the lands described in paragraph 3 above and in Exhibit A to this decree, and the State of Arizona and the United States of America, and each of them, are hereby enjoined and restrained from claiming or asserting any right, title, estate, or lien, whatever, in said lands, subject to the provisions of paragraph 9 below. 6. The State of Arizona is the owner in fee simple, by virtue of its sovereignty, of those lands in the bed of the former channel of the Colorado River more particularly described in Exhibit B to this decree. 7. The boundaries of the lands described in paragraph 6 above and in Exhibit B to this decree are permanent and fixed. 8. The State of California and the United States of America, and each of them, have no right, title, estate, or lien, whatever, in the lands described in paragraph 6 above and in Exhibit B to this decree, and the State of California and the United States of America, and each of them, are hereby enjoined and restrained from claiming or asserting any right, title, estate, or lien, whatever, in said lands, subject to the provisions of paragraph 9 below. 9. This action does not present for decision any question concerning the existence or extent of the federal navigational servitude in the lands that are the subject of this decree, and this decree makes no determination concerning that question. 10. The expenses of the Special Master shall be borne by the parties as previously directed by the Court. Each party shall bear its own costs in this action. EXHIBIT A A parcel of land in the former channel of the Colorado River in Imperial County, California, adjacent to Township 9 South, Range 21 East, San Bernardino Meridian; Township 10 South Range 21 East, San Bernardino Meridian; Township 10 South, Range 22 East, San Bernardino Meri |