Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Treat Reckless Corporate Behavior like Drunk-Driving
Top executives at BP, Massey, Goldman Sachs et al might have acted more responsibly if they had faced the prospect of jail time
Of course this is true, but it is also true that a drunk driver who runs into a school bus did not intend to be involved in a fatal collision. As a society, we have no problem holding the drunk driver responsible for a predictable outcome of their recklessness. Driving while drunk dramatically increases the risk of an accident. This is why it is punished severely. A person who is responsible for a fatal accident while driving drunk can expect to face many years in jail. Even someone who drives drunk without being in an accident often faces jail time because of the risk they imposed on others.
This raises the question of why the public seems to accept that the top officials at BP, who cut corners and made risky gambles in their drilling plans, should be able to "get my life back," as BP chief executive Tony Hayward put it. The people who lost their livelihood as a result of BP's spill will not get their lives back, even if BP does pay compensation. Certainly the 11 workers killed in the original explosion will not get their lives back. Why should the people responsible for this carnage be able to resume their life of luxury?
There are two separate questions. The first is a narrow legal issue concerning the extent to which Hayward and other high level executives can be held criminally liable for the accident. It may be the case that the laws are written so that even if companies commit gross negligence that results in enormous harm, including multiple deaths, top officials are not criminally liable. This is a question about the status of current law. The second question is a moral and economic one about what the laws should look like.
From either standpoint, it is very difficult to see why we would want to say that reckless behaviour that would be punished with long prison sentences if done by an individual, somehow escapes serious sanction if done as part of a corporation's pursuit of profit. Do we give a get a "get out of jail free" card to people when they are wearing the hat of a top corporate executive? This makes no sense.
Just to take the extreme case, suppose that Tony Hayward was racing back to the office after a three-Martini lunch in order to prepare the paperwork for a big contract that he had just negotiated. On his way, he hits a school bus, killing 11 children. Would it make sense to absolve him of blame for these deaths because it was the result of his efforts to raise BP profits? And, if that doesn't make sense, why does it make sense to absolve him of responsibility for the deaths of 11 oil rig workers that was the direct result of his decision to cut corners in order to increase profits.
We can ask the same question about the responsibility of the top executives of the Massey Energy corporation, whose shoddy safety practices led to the explosion that cost 29 workers their lives. We should also ask why the top executives of the UtahAmerican Energy company weren't subject to criminal prosecution when their recklessness led to the deaths of six miners and 3 rescue workers in a mine collapse in 2007. In these cases and many others the problem was not simply bad luck. In all three cases, the accidents were the direct result of reckless behaviour on the part of the management of these companies. They ignored standard safety measures in order to save money.
Of course most acts of recklessness don't result in fatalities, just as the vast majority of incidents of drunk driving do not end in fatal collisions. Nonetheless, when they are caught, we still punish drunk drivers for their recklessness. This would be a good pattern to follow more generally. The executives of the major oil companies whose clean-up plans for the Gulf of Mexico involved procedures for rescuing walruses would find the matter far less humorous if it involved jail time. Is there any reason it should not?
The problem is that government has been controlled for far too long by soft-on-crime conservatives. They are willing to look the other way and give break after break to criminals, as long as they are the white-collar types who belong to the best country clubs.
This must come to an end. The country can't afford special privileges for high-class criminals. It is time to take a tough stand on criminals who inhabit the corporate suites. We have to tell the top executives at BP, Massey, Goldman Sachs and elsewhere that if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
31 Comments so far
Show AllThis article is based on a great analogy. And the fact that heads of companies are not held criminally responsible for their reckless conduct only supports the fact that we live in a two tier society. Swift and severe "justice" for the little guy and a wink and a nod for those in power.
Ever since Ronny Raygun accelerated the era of of corporate decriminalization (he called it deregulation) most corporate crimes have been decriminalized.
As SCOTUS continues to move rightward we will continue to see more decriminalization that will give corporations more opportunities to reap unprecedented fortunes at our expense.
The Chinese would have hung the whole board by now. I hope they are drilling off their coast.
Before they start drilling off of China, they will make sure they own the Chinese government. That is standard corporate operating procedure.
I agree with NC-Tom.
It's also the case that in particularly egregious cases we impose a death penalty. Why not execute BP or any other corporate perp who commits a terrible crime? Remove their charter...spread their assets to the four winds.
It is their ability to never die and thus forever accumulate wealth and power that is the seat of the problem. So...let's kill them!
I agree with generalcommentator that the death penalty should be imposed on corporate criminals who commit (certainly) capital crimes. For too long, white-collar crime has drawn mere slaps on the wrist, while some poor drug user who gets caught winds up in jail with a long sentence.
No doubt all those conservatives who support the death penalty for individuals will also support the death penalty for corporations. Right ? Riiightt! ! !
Jim Shea
Just try to get the Obummer or Holder to go after corporate heads, it will be an investigation like the one that let the Blackwater employees skate after the shoty investigation where they killed seventeen people in Iraq and were let go do to proscutorial misconduct. We really need to quit electing procorporate types to office, local, state and federal governments. Until then, it's going to be the same shit, different day!
Wonder how many folks whose livelihoods and lifestyles have been ruined voted for the Great De-regulator Rotty Ragoon?
You can bet that more than 90% of them voted for Raygun, and would vote for him again if they had the opportunity.
In America, if you connect the dots its means you want the terrorists to win.
"The problem is that government has been controlled for far too long by soft-on-crime conservatives."
Gee, where's Obama?
Is he playing golf today?
I did not vote for Obama and would not have voted for McCain, I didn't vote-waste of time.
But, this guy is a huge problem. I don't think America is going to recover from this.
The pollution from this leak has moved into the East and as far north as N.D. The damage is not calculable.
Good Grief.
Why didn't you vote for Ralph Nader ?
We have a system of Justice in this country that is like everything else corrupted by $$. The rich can do just about anything and get away with it. Witness the crimes of Drug Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly and it seems dozens of Fundie Ministers and rt. wing pols. Almost nothing happens to most of these folks and then contrast it to how the poor or even average middle class slob is treated by the same so called Justice system. It's pathetic. Destroy and entire ecosystem and we let you handle the PR and the mess and not even get charged. Steal a Twinkie from a store and get 20 yrs. on a labor gang in a privatized jail. We are rapidly devolving just as the band DEVO predicted 35 yrs. ago. Oh and are they ever Whipping it good!
But capitalism in pursuit of profit is never a crime in our country. Restraining those who are motivated by greed is. In fact the constantly heard reason for why we haven't recovered and still have high unemployment is the lack of "business confidence" caused by excessive regulation. If these guys are not free to pursue any scheme or cockeyed plan how will they ever make money and then employ people? Buy that? Certainly corporate media does.
Am not totally in agreement with those who wish to punish CEOs for the wrongdoing of their companies. The problem is not evil individuals but wrong policies. The remedy is to compensate victims, to change policies, to remove responsible parties from positions of power. One way to insure reasonable policies be established is to insist that companies follow a set of rules set down by the government. In order to obtain a corporate charter those rules must be agreed to by the Board of the company and by its managers. Failure to abide by the rules could result in revocation of the charter. Offending companies may not be allowed to do business within the United States. I do not know how all of this fits with corporate or federal law, but certainly it is a goal to strive for.
Treat Corporate malfeasance like Drunk Driving/DUI? What a laugh!
In most jurisdictions across North America DUI is a minor offense (admittedly one that kills thousands every year) that takes multiple arrests and fines to get to the point of actual jail time. Or you have to kill someone in a DUI related collision. And even then the sentences are a slap on the wrist.
Why not treat Corporate crime like any other major felony, like armed assault, bank robbery, rape or murder?
Oh right... because that would infringe on the Corporations ability to make massive profits. And cutting into the profit margin will 'endanger the economy' as the policy wonks like to moan and tremble about.
So the Corporations will continue to hold our respective Governments by the family jewels in a vise-like grip, demanding and receiving the sycophantic services of their 'elected' whores, while further eroding the public's rights and freedoms.
The entire board of BP, and every shareholder should be treated to the same gentle graces the common political prisoners of the US gulag in Guantanimo enjoy.
Non Serviam -I will not serve.
Galenwainwright-
Sorry, but obviously you don't live in California. The DUI laws in this state are draconian. A slap on the wrist for a DUI-related fatality? Try life in prison without parole. I've been through the system (long story). I've seen how it operates firsthand. In this state, ONE arrest (a misdemeanor) equals jail time.
"Why not treat Corporate crime like any other major felony, like armed assault, bank robbery, rape or murder?"
The point is that the BP apologists are claiming innocence because it was an "accident". The major felonies that you mention are crimes with intention, therefore, the DUI analogy is much more apt.
I live in BC, Canada.
The common sentence in Canada for a DUI fatality is 2-5 years, with early probation for good behavior. Multiple convictions are not uncommon. The Premier of BC, Gordon Campbell was *convicted* of three DUI related felonies while vacationing in Hawaii some years ago. He has been caught DUI at home since then at least twice. So far, he is still in power.
The BP apologists are willfully ignoring BP's ludicrous and tragic safety record in favor of pandering to potential profits. BP averages more than 700 'willful or egregious' violations of health and safety regulations every year. The next worst offender less than 10. The ongoing Gulf/Macondo incident is no more 'accidental' than the public execution of JFK.
Alcohol producing Corporations (for example) funnel millions of dollars into advertising and media productions depicting excessive alcohol consumption as socially acceptable. This leads to many fatalities from alcohol poisoning or DUI related car collisions and boating incidents. Those who commit these acts are charged and prosecuted, rightly so. But the suppliers and promoters of alcohol consumption are NEVER held responsible, all because they pay a pittance in taxes, but millions of dollars to avoid regulations that would hold them as responsible agents. But holding them responsible would infringe on their 'right' to make obscene profits. Not making these profits 'endangers' the economy, and is actually forbidden by the majority of Corporate charters.
Non Serviam - I will not serve.
We can become the change we seek -- Support progressive businesses with every purchase and policy choice. Make corporations change, or die for lack of customers.
Capitalism, as practiced today, gives rise to Corporations.
Corporations exist only to make a profit.
To make the greatest profit Corporations need few restrictions on their products or practices.
To ensure a minimal number of restrictions or regulations, Corporations fund the election campaigns of politicians who form the Government.
The politicians, and thereby the Government want to keep their Corporate donors happy, so they act on behalf of the Corporations.
The Corporations, pleased with the outcome, hire the politicians as lobbyists and CEOs.
And the dance goes ever on...
But remember; When it's time to pay the piper, the devil calls the tune.
A day of reckoning is coming for Western Civilization. Are you ready to foot the bill, in terms of human life and destruction of the environment? By continuing the endless consumer lifestyle, even by supporting so-called 'progressive' businesses, you are still supporting the paradigm of rampant capitalism.
I don't know how to 'fix' the problem. I don't know if it *can* be fixed. But I do know that the present course only leads to further repression, war and destruction. The Peace movement is moribund, and the 'progressives' turned into wimps when the CIA drone Obama came on the public scene, and now spend most of their time moaning and complaining on Twitter and their blogs. Very few are willing to confront the Corporations or their Government sock puppets, in no small part due to the increasing willingness of the Police to commit violence far out of proportion to the perceived threat to property.
'Becoming the change we seek' means working inside the system, eventually compromising to the point you become part of the system. Down that path lies stagnation and defeat.
Non Serviam - I will not serve.
The Uruguayan writer Eduardo Galliano observes that "crimes committed in cars are called 'accidents'". Indeed, before a car "accident" occurs, someone broke the law. Likewise with industry. If you run an oil refinery legally there will not be explosions. If you meet your legal requirements in ocean drilling you won't have blow-outs. Each of these "accidents" trace their cause to a crime. No new laws necessary, just like the financial swindle that brought down the West's economy. As Eliot Spitzer observed, Fraudulent Conveyance has been a crime in New York (where most of the fraudulent debt instruments originated) since before the Revolutionary War. Applying these existing laws could've sent not just Goldman-Sachs and AIG executives to jail, but Bernancke and Geithner, too. Summation: When we find a drunk driver we don't need any new laws, but we DO need to apply the ones we have. Wishing for a legal recourse when one already exists is to the benefit of only the guilty.
"If you meet your legal requirements in ocean drilling you won't have blow-outs."
Although I agree with Baker's point, the sentence above goes too far. If you are driving a car that has had all of the required maintenance done on it, you still may have a true accident if some part in the front end suddenly snaps.
The book Normal Accidents discusses events that happen regardless of how careful industry is, because some of the systems we create are too complex to understand everything that can go wrong as one part interacts with another.
But in the financial industry at least, Baker has a point.
While I can agree with your main point, which is, I gather, that accidents CAN occur despite our best efforts, "the sentence above" doesn't go far enough. Legal standards, although eroded through our toxic financial interference with law-making, still do exist for every step of deep sea ocean drilling. They were so badly flouted by BP that just prior to the critical maneuver that resulted in the spill half the BP executives sold huge amounts of their stock, some of the engineers called home to complain of safety violations. Real "accidents" can be distinguished from f--k-ups caused by negligence.
rudy...you get the "nail on the head" award....there are laws a plenty but "silk tie" holder, and his ilk, have no heart for confronting their eventual bosses (or the friends of their future bosses)...there are "laws" but NO LAW...peace
Mr. Baker,
i would love to see from you a second article delving into Corporate Personhood- how Corporations claim individual rights and how they avoid individual responsibilities/punishments.
Great DUI analogy, mind if I use it?
This is partly due to the government's and BP's success in hiding the consequences of their actions from the public, with an acquiescent press.
If America could see the hundreds of animals--dolphins, turtles, and so on--dying from our filth, they would hold more anger. How many even know about the turtles being burned inside the burn loop of oil? And if they saw the dolphins floating, dead and dying, I imagine their anger would boil over.
A) Gee, really, do ya think treating the elite like the common criminals most are would send a message? What a new f**king concept.
Here's the problem: our entire system would crash because 90% of Big Banksters, their Big Everything Else partners, and 'our' politicians would be in jail.
B) Didn't we put a few Enron guys away? Some Tyco crooks? A couple Global Crossing scoundrels? Didn't Ken Lay take one for the team?
Message sent? No. Why? Because no law can stop a money/power addiction, just like it can't stop any other addiction.
But what can be done is this: as when a bartender flags a drunk who's had too many, we need an official watchdog that flags the money/power addict when his obsessive compulsions start adversely affecting others. Ya wanna work hard and make an honest profit? Fine. Ya wanna 'do what ever it takes' to accumulate as much wealth as possible no matter the consequences? You're flagged before ya can do too much damage - no more money drug for you - instead, you get therapy 3x a week and this new Greedism-cure pill we're beta-testing...
Treat Reckless Corporate Behavior like Drunk-Driving
No, treat it like first degree murder or war crimes, punishable by death. You won't stop all of it but you most certainly will stop some of it.
and just how many excuses do you ya think a drunk has?
whocares;)
I tend to check AP newswires at Salon.com, even though I am highly skeptical of both AP and Salon.
When I first saw the DUI headline, it reminded me that AP loves to regularly post "News of the Weird"-type articles about people getting busted for DUI multiple times in one day.
They also post less whimsical DUI-related stories that I'll venture to say we've ALL seen on local teevee news over the years: a gruesome auto accident caused by a drunk driver with a suspended license and a history of DUI citations or arrests in the double digits.
Now they have technological "solutions" for chronic DUI cases, e.g. installing auto ignitions with built-in breathalyzers that require a "clean" result to start the car. But the reality is that law enforcement can't really stop drunks from driving.
I'm not disputing comments asserting that some states have extremely harsh laws against DUI crimes, and that drunk drivers in such venues do hard time for violating them. But such examples don't seem to deter the folks who keep popping up in those AP reports.
My impression, derived from reading Russell Mokhiber et al, is that the law relies upon soft, pro forma mechanisms to adjudicate corporate wrongdoings; law enforcement agencies obviously don't WANT to prosecute corporate crime.
Instead, they execute various gentlemen's agreements, a sort of equivalent to the DUI approach of punishment by fine and compulsory rehab.
Making corporate executive crime equivalent to a DUI may be more of a status quo than Baker realizes.
The parable of drunk driving...
Several months ago I read an article reporting that some fairly local guy had been arrested for multiple burglaries. Seeking to discover if he was involved in stealing my motorcycle several years ago, I drove to the HQ of the State Police who had made the arrest. Late afternoon I parked my car in the parking lot of the HQ and hit the outside buzzer of their front door.
A young uniformed man answered the buzz and I showed him the Title doc for my stolen motorcycle. He invited me in and as I sat in the hallway another officer came up and pronounced that he smelled alcohol. Have you been drinking? Yeah, a nip about an hour ago, less than a shot.
Do you have any weapons? Yeah. I pulled out a tiny enclosed razor-type blade designed to slit packing tape (by no means a "box cutter"). Please empty out your pockets, which I did. He took my driver's license to another room.
The younger guy who let me in then appears with a portable device that measures alcohol level. It tests me at .08, which is drunk under the law. In front of both of them I assert that these devices are "notoriously unreliable." The younger guy says, "we test them once a year," and then the older guy hooks me up to the desktop breathilizer and says blow into this until you have no breath, and I do.
He takes the printout from this test into another room and then comes back and says I've tested .07, hands me back my license and says they have no reason to hold me. (They have had by this time more than a half hour to check me out through Homeland Security and local agencies, etc., and in five decades of driving I have never been accused of drunk driving even after having been pulled over for speeding a couple of times.)
Okay. So, how about the theft of my motorcycle? The State Police beg off and say that the burglar is no longer in their jurisdiction and now is in a local county jail, charges pending. Out of our hands...
NOTICE: I have been potentially charged with drunk driving even though no officer saw me driving! Yeah, I have alcohol on my breath but I am sitting in a chair in a hallway and I am seeking justice. Who the hell stole my old motorcycle?
No answers.
Compare this scenario with Dean Baker's scenario for the corporate criminals.
Harry S Truman said "the buck stops here."
Today we have a government where "responsibility" no longer exists. Regulation of Private Enterprise? Dubya systematically destroyed it, as Raygun had begun.
I want my motorcycle back! You bastard! You cheap thief.
I'd love to interview Bernie Madoff. I'd bet he had a motorcycle...even in Manhattan.
-30-
You were extremely fortunate the Police were more or less 'by the book'. If they had been typical cops, you would have spent the rest of the night in jail and been up on charges. That you were not charged with carrying a 'concealed weapon' is nothing short of amazing. Most Police these days look for excuses to light people up they *think* are doing *anything* even remotely illegal.
Let the bike go, write it off to learning a cheap lesson.
Non Serviam - I will not serve.