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.”
AY,
You do mean just a few years ago…right? 🙂
Well thank you Elaine… Raff… That had to be me….many years ago….
Great video Elaine! One cute baby!
AY,
This one’s for you:
Annie you can chuckle at me or with me, I’m fairly thick skinned.
Agreed Darren.
I think it is helpful to recognize this website belongs to Professor Turley and he can administer it to his own choosing.
Some have made it well known, sometimes hourly, that they object to certain individuals’ comments and their participation here. I can assure you that there is no further need to declare to all these complaints because it is a fact recognized by everyone the complainants’ views.
If a person affronts you. Well that is part of the way this world is. You do not have a right to retaliate or retort on this blog. The engagement in this back in forth and then calling for Professor Turley to come by and exact punishment against their nemesis borders on child’s play, because it continues to occur regardless of repeated times of being told to disengage.
So basically it is a simple request of our Host to cease degrading the quality of writing on his blog by not arguing among yourselves. It is also acceptable to simply leave if the blog’s contents are intolerable to them.
And that’s all I have to say about that.
AY, I will only chuckle with you, never at you. 🙂
Not if you chuckle at me Annie….
A whole chunk of my life is missing. Woe is me. 🙂
Will I get in trouble for chuckling?
Well thank you…
Anonymously Yours, I have corrected my comment. However, I have deleted your last comment to end this personal tit for tat.
Just food for thought why don’t you name Paul and Nick as having comments deleted…. I see Elaine has well…. And she was quite honest about the way it used to be when folks disagreed…
And “others”. Quite a few others I see, no problem.
You’re quite welcome. But I doubt you didn’t know about it. Either way, I always aim to please. If I listen closely, I can here the echo from that august blog all the way in my bathroom.
Thanks for the pointer to Flowers for Socrates. Just had a great visit. Lots of great posts and not a single insult to be found 🙂
bettykath – glad you enjoyed your trip to Flowers for Algernon. When everyone is on the same page it all goes smoothly.
Karen, Govt. people never have consequences. The stupid Congress should grant that felonious Lerner immunity. Then, if she refuses to testify just lock her spongy ass up until she does. She’s an errand girl. The WH is dirty and that’s who I want, West Wingers, not pock marked errand girls.
In a similar vein, I believe that anyone who was involved in the fraud at the VA – destroying or hiding patient records, lying about wait times, etc, should get jail time. That fraud caused veterans to actually die, and such long wait times could have severe consequences for prognosis or recovery.
Everyone should be treated equally under the law, including the poor, officers in Big Business, government employees, and politicians.
Lois Lerner admitted she wiped her Blackberry and sent it to be recycled while she was under investigation. That’s destroying evidence. The IRS conveniently suffered computer crashes for its people under investigation, and has blocked outside efforts to recover the data. That’s obstructing justice.
There should be no “one way for thee, another for me.”
As for Halliburton, I live in CA, where it’s getting increasingly difficult for anyone to get jail time. I expect their law firm to fight for the best deal they can get. At least $1.1 billion sounds like significant consequences, but was anyone fired? Where were the personal consequences for those involved, especially those who gave the order for evidence to be destroyed?