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.”
Anonymously Yours…I don’t get what you are trying to say. One thing for sure, it doesn’t answer a single on of my legitimate questions on the thread topic and as it evolved. I am no one’s shill and never have been.
Airdog.
I have found that a good way to address the issues of others you mentioned in your comment before mine is consider personal attack based comments as irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. I recognize they can be angering and upsetting but there are more individuals who read this blog who do not comment. Discussions and contributions to the topic are attractive the readers’ interests are more worthwhile for them than becoming immersed in the business of one-upmanship in discord amongst those who cannot control themselves.
Aridod,
This should interest you as to why the forum evolves the way it does….
From Bill McWilliams….
An easy, sure way to spot a paid or volunteer right-wing shill/troll is the tactics they all use when responding to information they don’t like but can’t refute.
almost all try to shoot the messenger, try to discredit the source, say something childish/silly, feign outrage, question the writer’s patriotism, act as though the message or messenger doesn’t deserve a response, deny there is such a thing as paid propaganda, cite a right-wing argument that may or may not make sense on its own, but is unresponsive to the issue at hand, act in a way that reveals their loathe for people and ideas that are unknown or just different than theirs, cite right-wing talking points from the vast right-wing conspiracy etc.
No one here has been able to prove that anyone is a paid right-wing anything.
Nick…this WAS a thread of substance but it devolved in to nonsense. Heck, I cited Halliburton and KBR’s malfeasance in some cases early on on this thread, from direct personal experience, to no acknowledgement. I don’t care. I know it is political and I’ve been in the midst of it all for decades. Who cares or wants facts? No one. That’s who.
Then the thread morphed to campaign reform. Okay. The idea of campaign reform is serious, however, most here seem to want to cheer for it, but not explain it, save Darren’s response. Lacking responses to my questions, what else am I to think?
Outside of those who’ve known me for a while, like yourself and a few others, only Randyjet and Darren have given up the time of day. Then it went all you bad/we good/yada yada from folks who might have answered my questions if they weren’t so obsessed with personal issues rather than the topic. When I am ignored I move on, and often out. For example: I quit my subscription to Legal Insurrection simply because after a couple years I got tired of their lack of assistance on “lost posts” to an alleged span filter…given I was a subscribed member (monthly payments) with a registered identity, email address, and ISP. Puleeze.
Deep self-anointed intellects who provide no responses/answers to questions do not impress me. I’m a “dingbat” because I am associated with you…and I am not the least bit ashamed of that. Calling me a “dingbat” is, of course, not an “attack” …so “dingbat” I am by edict. The “hall monitors ” have spoken…go away if you have questions, discussion is not welcome here. My thanks to Randyjet, Darren, but it is not enough. I can be ignored any number of places, this one is not a necessity. I think that is sad as it has great potential and has for some time from what I’ve seen so far. It’s just not a place for me….when questions are unwelcome I have to move on to places I get answers and honest discussion.
Where oh where was AY… Lol….
Aridog, Look for threads of substance and substantive commenters. The Race/Rage is one so far, anyway. Like anything in this world, one must be selective.
I give up. Bye y’all for today. I asked several questions, forthrightly, and mostly crickets but for Darren. This is a waste of time.
Thank you JT, was posting while you were.
Help. Somebody explain to me how this thread of late isn’t basically pot calling kettle black? Both “sides” criticize each other, and it isn’t only one side that lets it get “personal.” So be it…get over all y’all’s selves…it isn’t all about you, or me, or anyone. I’ve asked for cogent responses on several points on the topic of this thread (the original one) and mostly crickets except for Darren, and on another thread, only Randyjet, who made a positive suggestion I took seriously.
I will acknowledge one thing…I’ve added several new folks to my by-pass category thanks to this thread, and likely they’ll make the ignore category shortly. That is sad, for both me and those who would like to influence my thinking or change my opinions. Hint: essentially calling me schmuck isn’t working. I already posted what motivates me vis a vis a list…so its not a secret.
Is this place destined to be terminally boring? You tell me. I doubt that is the Professor’s goal, but he’s getting some help he doesn’t need.
Aridog, Absolutely. Due process has morphed into political justice. Colleges are taking due process away in sexual assault cases. They have tried to hide the sexual assault problems on campus. They have been exposed and the so the people who brought you speech codes are stripping away due process for those accused of sexual assault.
Elaine, so true. I’m just surprised the JT goes along with it.
Bruce…I agree. Selective “justice” is no justice.
I don’t think I was paying close attention, to the overall issue, until the Gibson Guitar episode(s)…but that one stood out as pure politics, not justice or law enforcement. Previously my focus was on the UCMJ and it’s processes. Scapegoating is widely the rule of the day it appears to me. I’d love to blame it on Obama, however, it has been going on in prior administrations, just more publicly blatant now.
It also seems to be me we have too many agencies today with new prosecutorial powers outside Dept of Justice, as well as militarized police powers for those otherwise not intended to be sworn police officers….and some bypass the certification and swearing in part altogether.
Worse of all, some “prosecution” is not legitimate in that it is based upon regulations and rules, without sound basis in statute or law. In short, you can be charged, fined, property confiscated, well before any criminal evidence is proffered by anyone, let alone formally by DOJ. Guilty until you prove your innocence can be the rule….meantime you pay the penalties and fines if you can, which impedes your ability to hire attorneys.
And, there are other interesting threads, as stated previously.
Aridog, Bruce, myself and others are still looking for substance from you and bettykath. The topic is Govt. business relationships and campaign reform. Not you!
Au contraire, I want you to keep speaking Elaine. It is edifying. A wise man has told you many times to ignore me. Is JT trying to silence you, or help you?
Bettykath,
Some men can’t abide outspoken women whose opinions differ from theirs. They continually try to silence them.
Bruce, And those decisions are based on campaign donations. Paying for protection, just like the Mob made their money.
Elaine, Why doesn’t JT see these trolls and personal attacks? I’ve tried to ignore the negative comments for the many months that I have been coming here, but, as you can see from the list, the attacks are sooooo numerous on some threads that the personal attacks become the context. There are days when I just can’t (or won’t!) handle all that negativity. By calling him out, I’m sure there will be more attacks on me. Well, maybe he’ll give you a rest. Have you noticed that it’s the women he goes after with the most zeal? He’s already driven off two really sharp bloggers over this, at least that is his claim.
This thread is again turning to the same personal attacks from the same posters. We use the comment section for a discussion of the merits and not personal dislikes or attacks under our civility rule. I have not deleted any of the past comments but such deletions will occur if posters continue to use this space to take spots at other posters.
It seems to me that we now have a government that picks and chooses who to prosecute
If I may be so bold, just what is it about my comments below that makes me a “dingbat?” Those would would seem to categorize me as that do not know me other than by association and a few comments so far in a week or two.
1. “I will listen to any explanations of what I am missing.” (Ref S J Res. 19, rev Jul 2014)
2. “Let me ask one more time” (same reference @ #1)
3. “I will listen….to answers proposed for both general questions above.”
4. “Again, I will listen to explanations of why this system should remain unchanged, if someone has one.”
Responses? Crickets, generally, with one positive response from Darren about Washington state that made sense to me and I said so.
Is this place about discussion or just assertions?