Respectfully submitted by Lawrence E. Rafferty (rafflaw)-Weekend Contributor
I guess I should not be surprised anymore, but it still saddens me to read that our old friend, Halliburton, has pled guilty to destroying evidence concerning their participation in the BP Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion and the subsequent environmental disaster in 2010. If they pled guilty why should I be upset? I am upset that the Department of Justice agreed to a $1.1 Billion fine instead of jail time. Once again a corporate “citizen” has committed a crime and no one is going to jail.
I understand the costs involved in taking a case of this magnitude to trial, in order to press for prison time for the culpable officers. However, if this had been an individual would the Justice Department have balked at trying to get a conviction and jail time? I am not the only one concerned with the Justice Department’s soft handling of corporate criminals.
“David Uhlmann, an University of Michigan environmental law professor and former chief of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Environmental Crimes Section, said the settlement raises questions about the absence of criminal charges against the company.
“Halliburton did not admit negligence in today’s settlement but the fact that they agreed to pay over $1 billion raises anew questions about why the Justice Department did not charge the company criminally for its role in causing the Gulf oil spill,” Uhlmann said in an email reply to USA TODAY questions about the settlement.” Reader Supported News
I can’t blame Halliburton for working to get a fine instead of jail time, but how can we stop corporate criminals from breaking the law in the future when the worst case scenario for them is the payment of a fine that could be tax-deductible? Halliburton was also looking at more serious financial uncertainty if it had not reached a settlement because of its role in the Deepwater Horizon fiasco and would have had to deal with the multiple BP claimants. Wouldn’t that give the Justice Department more bargaining power to insist on some jail time?
“With the agreement, Halliburton removes itself from future liability regarding legal claims filed on behalf of thousands of fishermen, business owners and others who said their lives and livelihoods were ruined by the spill.
“Halliburton wanted out,” said LeCesne. “Since their failed cement mixture is a the epicenter of culpability in this incident, they didn’t want to take any further chances.”‘ RSN
This is not the first time that a corporate “person” has committed crimes and only had to face a fine. We have seen it in the numerous Banks who have bought their way out of criminal liability. What will it take for the Justice Department to actually push for a criminal penalty in these corporate bad actor cases?
Shouldn’t a corporation that has allegedly committed crimes run the same risk as any individual when it comes to going to jail for those crimes? This problem of allowing corporations to buy their way out of criminal prosecutions is not a new issue. According to one Harvard Law Professor, Brandon Garrett, it started after the prosecution of the Arthur Anderson case in 2002 and after the conviction was overturned on appeal, prosecutors have been hesitant to go for criminal penalties in corporate cases.
“Federal prosecutors cemented their current approach to corporate prosecutions following the Arthur Andersen trial, which took place in 2002, and which I describe in the book—the jury convicted Andersen, resulting in the collapse of the company, but the conviction was then reversed on appeal. Fearful of the backlash should more high-profile cases end in disaster, prosecutors decided to allow more companies to avoid a conviction by entering deferred and non-prosecution agreements. Those deals took off in 2003, and they first caught my attention in 2006, when just a few dozen had been entered. The new approach was firmly in place when the financial crisis hit in 2007, and perhaps as a result, some companies may have felt they could settle prosecutions as a cost of doing business.” Harvard University Press Blog
Whatever reasons the Department of Justice is relying upon to push for civil fines instead of going for criminal convictions, the result stated by Prof. Garrett above would seem to be an easy decision for large corporations. Pay some money and walk away from the crimes. With the Department of Justice playing softball on corporate crime, why should the large corporations change their ways? As you may recall, Bank of America has been cited at least 6 separate times and no one has yet gone to jail. Time for a change in the Justice Department’s approach, don’t you think?
“The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.”
anon – to correct the record regarding my ‘lurking’ at Flowers for Socrates’ I was told it was run by a former Gber from here so I went and took a look. I was unimpressed, so I have not gone back.
This is all so junior high school.
🙁
I have deleted comments from various people who have violated our civility rule. I have been in court and just saw this thread. We are not interested in personal attacks on this blog.
I have now deleted a slew of petty or personal postings. We are not interested in a thread on who is immature or trolling. I understand if people find this blog or its civility rule or its commenters to be disappointing. There are a world of other blogs on this superhighway. There is no need to drag down this thread or this blog with personal comments, particularly when you have other options of either not responding or enjoying other sites with a different mix of people or rules.
Is there some sort of prohibition that I am unaware of regarding reading other blogs? Referencing the other blogs on this one? I had never heard of Flowers for Socrates and am always interested in reading new and diverse opinions so I went there and read some of the articles and comments. It appears that Elaine M comments here and there. Is this an issue?
Ari,
Posting is encouraged by the professor. Civility is as well. Sometimes wires get crossed, but when someone lights a rag with ad homein attacks it best to just remind them of the civility rule. Just don’t engage attacking because you are right, two here will send your statement to the professor and you will be called out for it. Don’t fall for the bait.
Aridog, For some, “dingbat” is all they got. The key is finding the people worth engaging and ignoring the ones not worthy. Hell Aridog, that’s the case on all blogs. There are other substantive people, it depends on the topic as to whom is attracted. For some, it’s the moon phases. Hang in there, dude.
Among other things, when I had one comment deleted, for a rather mild infraction of the “civility rule” ( actually I “attacked” no one, however I am sure someone claimed I did, but did cross the line on irrelevancy), compared to others that are allowed in long strings, such as the “dingbat” accusation, I was advised to just not comment or leave by Prof Turley. Not impressive.
Trust me, I can leave and would be happy to do so if I irritate too many of the souls here. I came here because I was told it was a vibrant community and worthwhile for discussion. I’m wondering if I’m wasting my time here. I ask questions, and 90% of the time…crickets. Some good faith commenters respond, as RandyJet, Rafflaw, and Darren have, but those who actually posed conundrums do not.
It’s rapidly becoming boring. YMMV.
Aridog – personally I pick and choose what I respond to, sometime I will not get into a discussion because someone else is involved in it already. Sometimes I will not get into it because I have already stated my position. Usually, I will respond to questions if they are directed to me but not to the group as a whole.
Elaine knows I have omnipresence powers…
Rafflaw….okay. Thanks for the clarification of what you meant. It was the “and” conjunction after the remark about opinions per se vis a vis other responses that caused me to ask my question(s). Nick’s statement that Prof. Turley supported Citizen United, albeit with reservations, is correct then. I get it that you meant to refer to the opinions of others going crazy or whatever as debatable or wrong.
Thank you.
Now, basta. The complaint dept. is closed. Chill. Have a drink. Light up a blunt. Smell the beautiful late summer air. Life’s too short to spend time whining. Nobody likes a whiner.
Elaine, We non club members were treated horribly when we arrived. The lack of empathy on the part of the power elite was appalling. I was told hundreds of times, “You’re free to leave!” I’m still here.
We generally point out flawed thought process and your reaction is the same as a paid hack.
AY – I am really curious. How are you able to identify a paid hack? Is it a course you take somewhere? Or personal experience as a paid hack? I am really interested to know how you obtained this insight.
Yes anon, you can ignore some on here as there only objective is to Create discord and dissent. Btw, check your email.
AY –
This seems very uncivil. Is this part of your selective civility?
Elaine,
Yep…. But we have a new branding of something called selective civility.
Rafflaw,
Back then, people on different sides of an issue were able to have interesting discussions without being labeled cultists or being ridiculed or having their positions interpreted for them by others who continually try to stir the pot.
anon, There is one person it behooves ALL to ignore, and most everyone, regardless of political persuasion, does. I think you can pick him out. My suggestion is to not even read him, that’s my strategy and it works well.
Paul, Thanks. There are a lotta Barney Fife’s the last couple days. For liberal, the truth is often perceived as “uncivil” or “unfair” or “insensitive.” It’s all about FEEEELINGS. They FEEEL pointing out a flawed thought process is uncivil. I’m just ignoring the peanut gallery. Oooh, I hope there aren’t any peanut allergies!!
Anon,
Now we have a mind reader…. Who knew… Please respect the professors request to be civil.
Aridog,
I did not dispute that Prof. Turley agreed with Citizens United, I disputed Nick’s comments that the “old timers” went bonkers over JT’s statement. I have disagreed with JT on a number of occasions.
Shxt. We’re back to personal insults.
Dick: “So, how could I even have an intelligent discussion w/ someone w/ that deeply flawed thought process? It is a burden even engaging w/ you.”
Yep, AY. “Civility” by Nick.
anon – I think it was not uncivil but a comment on the state where the conversation was NOT going to go.