This week we also had Jeb! pontificating in the Wall Street Journal about the need to do away with all regulations on businesses. Of course, the market will always police itself and business will soar and the economy will be great, and all citizens will be lifted to the heights of prosperity. Hahaha, we are the biggest fools in the world.
29
Mr. Baharara isn't no more interested in bringing corporate CEOs to book than Eric Holder! (He's a PR master; that's it!) There is just a different set of rules for the very wealth and connected.
We are lectured on a regular basis on how corporations are people but they constantly avoid liability and accountability. We also see the humans who make the decisions, because corporations really aren't people they are legal fictions, get a way with MURDER. It is time to end that practice and send more CEOs to prison. Take their money and their freedom. That would change the culture.
We are lectured on a regular basis on how corporations are people but they constantly avoid liability and accountability. We also see the humans who make the decisions, because corporations really aren't people they are legal fictions, get a way with MURDER. It is time to end that practice and send more CEOs to prison. Take their money and their freedom. That would change the culture.
24
"Corporations are people too, my friend."
Well maybe we should hang a couple of them at dawn, just to prove the point.
An entire board of directors lined up on the gallows would be a sure fire way to get their attention. And to insure the end of capital punishment.
Well maybe we should hang a couple of them at dawn, just to prove the point.
An entire board of directors lined up on the gallows would be a sure fire way to get their attention. And to insure the end of capital punishment.
41
Joe doesn't mention - and this is most significant - that the GM which committed the "fraud" no longer exists. It declared bankruptcy. And the GM that now does - was until recently owned solely by the auto union and the federal government. One could also state the previous owners of GM - the shareholders - losing their investment entirely was just reward - but that would ignore the fact of Detroit City and many other union pension funds being those losing shareholders.
The crucial fact is that the new GM was not obligated to pay a single penny to the ignition switch victims or anyone else; thanks to US bankruptcy laws. It could have fought all the suits, won and left the victims with nothing. The other point is that the primary guilty party was an engineer who falsified changes without informing management - so no executives were bound for jail. That engineer does face prosecution.
If we jailed every executive or government official for illegal action of an employee (see Obama and Lois Lerner of IRS fame) then our jails would be filled with every leader in the country. Be satisfied - if not happy - with the money given - given as a moral action.
The crucial fact is that the new GM was not obligated to pay a single penny to the ignition switch victims or anyone else; thanks to US bankruptcy laws. It could have fought all the suits, won and left the victims with nothing. The other point is that the primary guilty party was an engineer who falsified changes without informing management - so no executives were bound for jail. That engineer does face prosecution.
If we jailed every executive or government official for illegal action of an employee (see Obama and Lois Lerner of IRS fame) then our jails would be filled with every leader in the country. Be satisfied - if not happy - with the money given - given as a moral action.
8
An automobile involves intricate engineering. There are always flaws. Were those who knew of the ignition problem criminal, incompetent, or oblivious to the danger? Try proving that they ignored the risk of death or serious injury by engaging in fraud or by other means. Prove it beyond a reasonable doubt notwithstanding automobile engineering experts who will testify otherwise and GM employees with doctorates in engineering and degrees from the best business schools, who will deny criminal wrongdoing. Remember, you have to prove it by a vote of 12-0. Good luck to you! This isn't salmonella in peanut better. That's for sure.
8
Proof once again that the bigger your are, the more likely you can basically get away with murder. Is it any wonder that public morale these days is lower than the bottom of the ocean at its deepest point? And that the voting public is coming to see that both parties are full of thoroughly bought and controlled corporate puppets, and becoming equally disgusted with both?
In Europe they have a fine old tradition of reminding the big shots that the people, as voters, consumers and especially workers, matter - by staging short but strategically-timed general strikes. There are few sights more heartwarming to a long-suffering public than those of multimillionaires being forced to lug their baggage through long airport approaches. Perhaps it's time for a similar gesture here. What if they gave a Black Friday and nobody came? If people decided to keep enjoying Thanksgiving weekend with their families, rather than being summoned out of their homes in the middle of the afternoon to fulfill the wishes of their profit-mad bosses? Now that would be a beautiful moment - and it's long overdue.
In Europe they have a fine old tradition of reminding the big shots that the people, as voters, consumers and especially workers, matter - by staging short but strategically-timed general strikes. There are few sights more heartwarming to a long-suffering public than those of multimillionaires being forced to lug their baggage through long airport approaches. Perhaps it's time for a similar gesture here. What if they gave a Black Friday and nobody came? If people decided to keep enjoying Thanksgiving weekend with their families, rather than being summoned out of their homes in the middle of the afternoon to fulfill the wishes of their profit-mad bosses? Now that would be a beautiful moment - and it's long overdue.
11
Self-regulation is always difficult, even when necessary and proper; witness the folks at the crosswalk with you, as we all waddle across the intersection.
Thus tasking the government to regulate business is like counting an a diet to work. The government is owned by rich persons to whom profit from fraud is just another finger of icing.
Thus tasking the government to regulate business is like counting an a diet to work. The government is owned by rich persons to whom profit from fraud is just another finger of icing.
Our legal system is skewered against individual responsibility for corporate actions. This is largely because of the concept of a corporate personhood which is a logical fallacy. Corporations can be fined but no corporation can ever be penalized by incarceration as a person could.
There are many instances where corporate malfeasance should be punished by criminal penalties. Unfortunately grossly unethical conduct by corporate officers is rarely an actual crime. We all saw Wall Street executives receive bonuses for actions in 2008 which although they certainly constituted fraud by any moral barometer were never in direct violation of statute.
Unfortunately due to our two party system which is nearly impervious to change it is unlikely any remedy for this will be forthcoming in the future.
There are many instances where corporate malfeasance should be punished by criminal penalties. Unfortunately grossly unethical conduct by corporate officers is rarely an actual crime. We all saw Wall Street executives receive bonuses for actions in 2008 which although they certainly constituted fraud by any moral barometer were never in direct violation of statute.
Unfortunately due to our two party system which is nearly impervious to change it is unlikely any remedy for this will be forthcoming in the future.
3
A relatively small peanut company in Georgia has a lots less political clout (i.e. purchased influence) than a company like GM or the big banks and financial gangsters on Wall Street. What happened is much like cops busting small street dealers rather than those selling by the truckload. It's public relations. It's not justice.
22
This is exactly what you'd expect in a nation turned into a pornocracy (government of harlots) by the over-influence of money in politics.
6
There are many good ideas which could be implemented to correct the unevenness of government prosecution of corporations or corporate officials. However, they are all subject to corporate lobbying and even the personal feelings of the prosecutor.
The public is frequently told to,"vote with your dollars." Perhaps a ,"No jail ? No sale!" consumer response. If consumers were to boycott GM for a period of months, I guarantee we would get their attention.
The public is frequently told to,"vote with your dollars." Perhaps a ,"No jail ? No sale!" consumer response. If consumers were to boycott GM for a period of months, I guarantee we would get their attention.
For some peculiar reason, Mr. Nocera recites the same fundamental misunderstanding of the danger of the ignition-caused engine turnoff that the Times has repeated during its entire coverage of the issue:
"For years, G.M. executives didn’t realize that when the ignition shut down, the airbags also lost power."
That description is absurd. It's like saying, if the engine falls off a jetliner at 30,000 feet, the emergency slides won't deploy in the event of a crash. The danger is, the airliner will crash! Likewise, when the ignition shuts down, it turns off the engine, turning off the power brakes and power steering, making the car hard to control and about a thousand times more likely to crash. Only upon impact is the air bag failure relevant.
I complained about this hare-brained coverage two years ago, and the Times finally acknowledged in some reports that the engine suddenly dies, hobbling brakes and steering, making the car hard to control. But I can't even imagine why your editorial staff doesn't get it. Even GM executives, once cornered by the evidence, must have understood that non-functioning air bags are the last thing a surprised and terrified driver trying to control a fast-moving car has to worry about. It's barely-functioning brakes and steering, suddenly controlled only by human muscles, that make a high-speed engine shut-down life-threatening.
"For years, G.M. executives didn’t realize that when the ignition shut down, the airbags also lost power."
That description is absurd. It's like saying, if the engine falls off a jetliner at 30,000 feet, the emergency slides won't deploy in the event of a crash. The danger is, the airliner will crash! Likewise, when the ignition shuts down, it turns off the engine, turning off the power brakes and power steering, making the car hard to control and about a thousand times more likely to crash. Only upon impact is the air bag failure relevant.
I complained about this hare-brained coverage two years ago, and the Times finally acknowledged in some reports that the engine suddenly dies, hobbling brakes and steering, making the car hard to control. But I can't even imagine why your editorial staff doesn't get it. Even GM executives, once cornered by the evidence, must have understood that non-functioning air bags are the last thing a surprised and terrified driver trying to control a fast-moving car has to worry about. It's barely-functioning brakes and steering, suddenly controlled only by human muscles, that make a high-speed engine shut-down life-threatening.
25
Yes. But surely you can also see that the final consequence of the power loss it more dire without the airbag.
2
Executive immunity from prosecution is like other notorious immunities--legal vaccinations from pathogens infecting common people. It's like--
1. Diplomatic immunity--making Executives beyond the jurisdiction of the host polity's laws. Thus making the corporations polities themselves--on a par with--and in "Banana Republican" cases above the host polity's legal system. Often this allows them to get away with "murder" which requires intent--as well as intentional and negligence torts (see The Times on Nader)--liability for damage--hurt and harm--due omission of due care as well as commission of coverup and collusion.
2. Limited Liability of corporate owners--who cannot be held responsible--cannot be sues for damages or debts of the corporations they own--in whole or part.
3. Reduced tax liability for capital gains--profits or financial gains due merely from appreciation of stock---not due to any added value. Thus "unearned income"--though not even considered "income" as in "income tax"--which is tax on "earned income."
Adding insult to injury--investors (gamblers) enjoy reduced liability for capital gains (and "carried interest' (see The Times on Trump's expose of this loophole). They audaciously spin the tax breaks as rewards of "risk taking."
But limited liability and immunity has reduced the risk to zero--no more risk than a gambler's risk of losing money. But no risk for fraud or pollution--caused by the company's they own--as in the Volkswagen case.
1. Diplomatic immunity--making Executives beyond the jurisdiction of the host polity's laws. Thus making the corporations polities themselves--on a par with--and in "Banana Republican" cases above the host polity's legal system. Often this allows them to get away with "murder" which requires intent--as well as intentional and negligence torts (see The Times on Nader)--liability for damage--hurt and harm--due omission of due care as well as commission of coverup and collusion.
2. Limited Liability of corporate owners--who cannot be held responsible--cannot be sues for damages or debts of the corporations they own--in whole or part.
3. Reduced tax liability for capital gains--profits or financial gains due merely from appreciation of stock---not due to any added value. Thus "unearned income"--though not even considered "income" as in "income tax"--which is tax on "earned income."
Adding insult to injury--investors (gamblers) enjoy reduced liability for capital gains (and "carried interest' (see The Times on Trump's expose of this loophole). They audaciously spin the tax breaks as rewards of "risk taking."
But limited liability and immunity has reduced the risk to zero--no more risk than a gambler's risk of losing money. But no risk for fraud or pollution--caused by the company's they own--as in the Volkswagen case.
9
Michael:
I agree with a lot of what you say, but as Joe's column vividly shows, the problem is not executive immunity or limited liability but the fecklessness of prosecutors who fail to go after executives who make criminal decisions.
In fact, your solution of abrogating shareholders' limited liability would just make matters worse, because it would focus attention on passive shareholders rather than the executives who actually conceive and execute the crimes.
I am agnostic about how best to tax capital gains (or if they should be taxed at all). But do you really want to see seniors pay INCOME TAX on the capital gains they make on selling their homes? (And if not, why the special treatment?).
You lose me when you announce that limited liability has reduced shareholders' risk to zero. VW shareholders are paying a steep price for the company's fraud and pollution even as the managers who made the decisions may avoid prosecution.
You seem to share a common misconception that shareholders' limited liability for the corporation's (read executives') wrongful acts is a freebie. It is not. If you passed a law canceling limited liability the prices of cars -- and every other good or service -- would rise to compensate the shareholders for their increased risk.
Personally, I would support abolishing limited liability so long as government does not interfere with the freedom of contract of shareholders and, say, customers to limit shareholders' liability contractually.
I agree with a lot of what you say, but as Joe's column vividly shows, the problem is not executive immunity or limited liability but the fecklessness of prosecutors who fail to go after executives who make criminal decisions.
In fact, your solution of abrogating shareholders' limited liability would just make matters worse, because it would focus attention on passive shareholders rather than the executives who actually conceive and execute the crimes.
I am agnostic about how best to tax capital gains (or if they should be taxed at all). But do you really want to see seniors pay INCOME TAX on the capital gains they make on selling their homes? (And if not, why the special treatment?).
You lose me when you announce that limited liability has reduced shareholders' risk to zero. VW shareholders are paying a steep price for the company's fraud and pollution even as the managers who made the decisions may avoid prosecution.
You seem to share a common misconception that shareholders' limited liability for the corporation's (read executives') wrongful acts is a freebie. It is not. If you passed a law canceling limited liability the prices of cars -- and every other good or service -- would rise to compensate the shareholders for their increased risk.
Personally, I would support abolishing limited liability so long as government does not interfere with the freedom of contract of shareholders and, say, customers to limit shareholders' liability contractually.
2
Prosecuting individual decision-makers should be the norm. Sentences should be longer. No time off for good behavior, heading a prison ministry, or finding the Lord. Men who fought to the top of the corporate pyramid were masters of looking good.
I used to vote mostly Republican. I identified with moderation. I still believe free markets maximise economic flows.
But modern, largely anonymous markets need rules and policing so as to stop price-manipulation and to maximise customers and producers. Even so some goods and services are not amenable to sale thru markets. What is so hard to understand about that?
Where do today's self-styled conservatives get off calling themselves conservative? They don't know from conservative. They heed some yammerer who never read primary sources of conservative thought either. Brent Bozell is about as cerebral as any source they ever turned to.
I used to vote mostly Republican. I identified with moderation. I still believe free markets maximise economic flows.
But modern, largely anonymous markets need rules and policing so as to stop price-manipulation and to maximise customers and producers. Even so some goods and services are not amenable to sale thru markets. What is so hard to understand about that?
Where do today's self-styled conservatives get off calling themselves conservative? They don't know from conservative. They heed some yammerer who never read primary sources of conservative thought either. Brent Bozell is about as cerebral as any source they ever turned to.
7
The peanut guy could at most have owned a congressman or two. .
The auto industry owns a quorum.
The auto industry owns a quorum.
11
Mr. Nocera would certainly be offended at the very thought of, let us say, news columnists and executives being jailed for life-ruining libel. He would cite the First Amendment. It is ironic he is so eager to ignore the Constitution and put others in jail, without a great deal of attention to what crimes they might be charged with. Yes, I know this column it is red meat to the hard-left, but there's still hypocrisy.
1
Absolutely right. The mortgage bundling bubble was fraud on a world stage. Yet nobody from Goldman Sachs (not the only ones by far but they were first ones in and they dominated the scam) went to jail. They broke laws that hadn't yet been invented.
We didn't jail Al Capone for his worst transgressions but we jailed him all the same and the world was better off for it.
We didn't jail Al Capone for his worst transgressions but we jailed him all the same and the world was better off for it.
7
So, if this theory worked for the Peanut Case, why couldn't it work for the Wall Street shenanigans? Fraud is fraud. Americans still are upset that no significant person on Wall Street suffered at all for the havoc caused in 2008 and havoc that will probably happen again, given the lack of strict oversight and serious law reform. These institutions are so wealthy that a fine doesn't make a dent in misbehavior.
9
GM is another case of Too Big to Jail. It's really rather sickening when you see it time after time. The injury, illness, or death of consumers of products and services of big companies are not worth jail time. If you want a really clear example, how about the famous, no infamous, scene of the big tobacco execs in court lying under oath about the sickness caused by smoking. How about the exploding Pinto? How about worthless derivatives? Talk about caveat emptor--it definitely applies at the right times.
Jail time for a white collar guy on Wall St. or in Detroit? That's ridiculous. They have money and status. Let's devote our prosecutorial manpower to the real criminals selling individual cigarettes on a public street.
Jail time for a white collar guy on Wall St. or in Detroit? That's ridiculous. They have money and status. Let's devote our prosecutorial manpower to the real criminals selling individual cigarettes on a public street.
14
Of course it's fraud. As GM advertised and promoted its products over the air waves, internet, and mail, there are/were numerous statutes under to which to charge them.
Preet Bharara's decision was cowardly. That being said, it is doubtful his agreement explicitly states individual decision makers were pardoned. Those criminals who abetted and promoted the fraud that led to so many deaths and tragedies can still be brought to justice in other jurisdictions. State Attorneys General and other federal prosecutors ARE YOU LISTENING?
Preet Bharara's decision was cowardly. That being said, it is doubtful his agreement explicitly states individual decision makers were pardoned. Those criminals who abetted and promoted the fraud that led to so many deaths and tragedies can still be brought to justice in other jurisdictions. State Attorneys General and other federal prosecutors ARE YOU LISTENING?
5
Our country would be much improved if we replaced the massive numbers of the poor who are in prison with corporate executives who have committed real crimes instead of the nonviolent drug offenses that typically lead to imprisonment for those in the underclasses. Those in power like to claim--falsely--that we are a land of laws, not men. But in fact we are a land of men who have money, rather than a land of laws. The laws serve mainly to protect the rich and to impoverish further the rest of us.
13
Once the flaw was discovered and then not disclosed or swiftly acted upon by GM, there seems to be a case for first degree manslaughter. One could argue for the uplift of the criminal charges to premeditated murder amongst the lesser charges. Even if the prosecution was not successful with the first degree charges it would send a bone chilling message to business leaders.
14
I agree 100% the only way to stop corporate misdeeds is to prosecute and jail executives. Why don't we do this? Maybe because white collar criminals are like the prosecutor's: educated, usually white, members of society's socioeconomic elite. They have political, legal and financial power. Contrast with poor inner-city blacks who have none of these advantages, and go to jail for possessing small amounts of marijuana. There's a bias that favors wealthy executives at the expense of the rest of society.
23
Here's hoping this "trend" soon spreads to the pharmaceutical industry where, according to internal company documents, executives of the Eli Lilly company sat behind closed doors and - after hearing all the evidence showing that its blockbuster drug Zyprexa had lethal side effects - figured out how to hide them, thus dooming thousands of innocent victims to death.
19
Wow the commentators here are really lusting for revenge. A mob with its pitchforks that needs to get its hands on somebody. If we could only hang a few CEOs then all our problems would be solved!
Let me guess, you're one of the family members or friend of a person killed by the GM malfeasance?
Didn't think so. Write in again from the penthouse.
Didn't think so. Write in again from the penthouse.
So . . . a criminal justice system emerging from hundreds of years of Anglo-American experience and involving lengthy and intensive investigation and then formal disputation in court with protracted rights of appeal, equates in your mind to "a mob with its pitchforks"?
Agree agree agree.
I, as a citizen of the USA, do not want a settlement with GM that does not involve individual prosecutions.
Where are the victim's advocates.
This inequity is disgusting. And we mock China for its corruption and crony capitalism-- please.
I, as a citizen of the USA, do not want a settlement with GM that does not involve individual prosecutions.
Where are the victim's advocates.
This inequity is disgusting. And we mock China for its corruption and crony capitalism-- please.
9
DISPENSING JUSTICE requires that GM executive who knew of defects that killed many people be held accountable for their negligence. Just the same way that the president of a company that sold contaminated peanut butter paste was guilty. Bringing fraud charges against top auto officials would result in lengthy sentences and higher safety standards for auto owners. It's high time that the drivers got a fair shake and that manufacturers were held to a high standard of integrity and safety for drives. As it turns out, what's good for GM executives may be deadly for US drivers.
8
Collateral damage, friendly fire, cost benefit : what's a few dead people if profits equal X, they ask, all in the name of the holy dollar. And we the people let them.
1
And still none of them will go after the bankers.
You can't tell me that if Dimon or Fuld or Thain got 50 years in jail that their banks would disappear. There is always another crook who will step in. But it might make them think twice.
You can't tell me that if Dimon or Fuld or Thain got 50 years in jail that their banks would disappear. There is always another crook who will step in. But it might make them think twice.
16
As a former admirer of America I now find myself numb with disgust from the daily emerging facts (thanks Joe) that tell of what she really is. A plutocracy that is crushing all merit and justice. Wake Up!!
17
"In Greed We Trust."
An honest motto.
An honest motto.
Ha! What really happened here is that Parnell wasn't rich enough. He does not have the backing of a multi-billion dollar company like GM. $30 million, what pikers. I am not sure who said this but: "When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression". Parnell just got a dose of equality.
23
Corporations are people too. Completely shut GM and lock their executives away for 28 years.
7
Life for a life: the US takes all the stock, compensates the injured, re-issues stock and the current owners get nothing. That is the corporate death sentence, were it in the laws.
2
If a decision maker doesn't face personal punishment there is less care taken in the decision making process, kinda like W and Iraq!
10
... And the executives at tobacco companies? 480,000 US residents will die this year from cigarettes alone. More from other tobacco products.
Do you really think the bosses don't know that they kill close to a half million a year, in the US alone?
A life sentence is too good for them.
Do you really think the bosses don't know that they kill close to a half million a year, in the US alone?
A life sentence is too good for them.
12
I would like to see regulators be held responsible when facts make it apparent they looked away.
10
A serious auto accident usually doesn't cause nine deaths and 700 injuries. I think the sentence was just about right. I still can't believe that GM executives aren't serving similar terms, for intentionally killing more than 124 people. Next thing you know, Mary Barra will be running for president.
4
Nocera: "Preet Bharara...announced a settlement... but not a single indictment of a G.M. employee."
This highlights the problem with corporate personhood.
This highlights the problem with corporate personhood.
21
Rather than go to jail, the executives would be fighting the case well into the 2020s. By going against the corporation, the left gets an easy win. I doubt President Trump would allow the cases to continue (undoubtedly Mr. Bharaha will be fired on 1/20/17). Nor does his office have unlimited lawyers to fight a case where unlimited lawyers would be used by the defense.
1
I agree 100% on the need for a greater threat of jail time for executives.
Another issue with the fines is they can simply be another part of the cost-profit calculus. So GM got a 900 million fine, how much did they profit selling the defective cars? Did they still turn a profit from their illegal activity? In my opinion all fines should be leveled on top of first seizing all profits made by the illegal activity. This might give even monetary punishments a little more teeth.
Another issue with the fines is they can simply be another part of the cost-profit calculus. So GM got a 900 million fine, how much did they profit selling the defective cars? Did they still turn a profit from their illegal activity? In my opinion all fines should be leveled on top of first seizing all profits made by the illegal activity. This might give even monetary punishments a little more teeth.
5
Most of this accidental death & injury auto litigation also involves some contribution from motorists. The peanut case involved no such contributory acts.
Gas tanks do not catch fire until there is a collision and even the most safely designed tank will explode in some collisions. In this ignition switch fiasco the problem only arises when drivers had heavy key rings attached to the ignition key...again, contributory negligence.
Remember Firestone tires? There never was more than one blow out per incident. I have had 2 or 3 explosive blowouts in 50 years of driving. Control was not a problem. Blowouts due to road debris are a known hazard. Anyone who cannot control a car if one tire blows out is a criminally negligent incompetent driver who is personally responsible for any injury or death.
Gas tanks do not catch fire until there is a collision and even the most safely designed tank will explode in some collisions. In this ignition switch fiasco the problem only arises when drivers had heavy key rings attached to the ignition key...again, contributory negligence.
Remember Firestone tires? There never was more than one blow out per incident. I have had 2 or 3 explosive blowouts in 50 years of driving. Control was not a problem. Blowouts due to road debris are a known hazard. Anyone who cannot control a car if one tire blows out is a criminally negligent incompetent driver who is personally responsible for any injury or death.
1
That thinking is as laughable, BJ, as it is common.
"Contributory negligence", my Aunt Fanny. Sophistry such as this is the hallmark of the dilatory and tortured legalistic hair-splitting that is the fuel of tort denial and award limits, and characterizes the delay-unto-death strategy of business defense.
"Contributory negligence", my Aunt Fanny. Sophistry such as this is the hallmark of the dilatory and tortured legalistic hair-splitting that is the fuel of tort denial and award limits, and characterizes the delay-unto-death strategy of business defense.
7
Gosh, WM, you write good.
At what weight does a key chain become a contributory factor? I must have missed that detail in my driver education class.
How about Pharma executives who knowingly cheat and lie on the trials they present to the FDA to get drugs approved that then result in the deaths of tens of thousands (Vioxx, anyone)? And for that matter, the FDA, itself, that approves drugs that even its review panels recommend not to authorize and doesn't pull drugs off the market after deaths are reported (again, Vioxx, which was pulled by its maker not the FDA).
11
The GM executives showed their true colors when actively promoting their deadly cars as safe. They have the morals and ethics of a 20 year old street thug robbing a Bodega. No regard or consideration for the consequences and just as stupidly leaving the security camera tapes (corporate memos and meeting notes) to be found after the crime.
And for that pitiful performance the execs make millions?
If these well heeled hoodlums are the best the Boards of Directors can find the Boards are pretty incompetent and should be replaced.
And for that pitiful performance the execs make millions?
If these well heeled hoodlums are the best the Boards of Directors can find the Boards are pretty incompetent and should be replaced.
10
Does no one recall the GM "sidesaddle" gas tanks cases? The parents of Shannon Moseley watching as a GM engineer sweated blood on the witness stand? The government ultimately let GM walk on those as well.
http://www.autosafety.org/history-gm-side-saddle-gas-tank-defect
Has the prosecution of Ford Motors for murder also been forgotten?
http://users.wfu.edu/palmitar/Law&Valuation/Papers/1999/Leggett-pint...
Now, again, GM. In arcane legal procedure and sophistry, the courts - all the way to the Supreme Court - consistently let the automobile industry off the hook.
And every fresh revelation of gross malfeasance in manufacturing, finance and banking, health insurance, etc., etc., etc. occasions gale-force winds of furious talk and outrage over a couple of years, but the issues themselves diminish, drain away slowly, mostly out of sight in the quiet thickets of courts and conference rooms where evidence does not count.
Your government, your legislatures and judiciary, will not protect you, the public, nor prosecute the corporate criminal, and it has proven this time and again. It has no motive to do so. There is no one to compel it. You, we, accept this, are complicit in it by our enablement, in indifferent self-absorption with our own lives and interests. And if one of us should suddenly become a victim, we must be satisfied with a few columns in newspapers, a bit of spirited talk, meaningless fines, and a couple lost jobs among the privileged.
http://www.autosafety.org/history-gm-side-saddle-gas-tank-defect
Has the prosecution of Ford Motors for murder also been forgotten?
http://users.wfu.edu/palmitar/Law&Valuation/Papers/1999/Leggett-pint...
Now, again, GM. In arcane legal procedure and sophistry, the courts - all the way to the Supreme Court - consistently let the automobile industry off the hook.
And every fresh revelation of gross malfeasance in manufacturing, finance and banking, health insurance, etc., etc., etc. occasions gale-force winds of furious talk and outrage over a couple of years, but the issues themselves diminish, drain away slowly, mostly out of sight in the quiet thickets of courts and conference rooms where evidence does not count.
Your government, your legislatures and judiciary, will not protect you, the public, nor prosecute the corporate criminal, and it has proven this time and again. It has no motive to do so. There is no one to compel it. You, we, accept this, are complicit in it by our enablement, in indifferent self-absorption with our own lives and interests. And if one of us should suddenly become a victim, we must be satisfied with a few columns in newspapers, a bit of spirited talk, meaningless fines, and a couple lost jobs among the privileged.
19
Dear VM,
Perfectly, awfully, put. This is the truth: don't fantasize that our justice system is "the best in the world". I've seen it up close, and it cares nothing for the victims of crime. The courts are tracically self-interested, and many of those meting out Justice are the most corrupt. Look no further than our own Supreme Court Clarence Thomas.
Respectfully,
A crime victim in USA
Perfectly, awfully, put. This is the truth: don't fantasize that our justice system is "the best in the world". I've seen it up close, and it cares nothing for the victims of crime. The courts are tracically self-interested, and many of those meting out Justice are the most corrupt. Look no further than our own Supreme Court Clarence Thomas.
Respectfully,
A crime victim in USA
Revolving door? In bed with? Incompetent?
All of the above?
I don't really think we need a caped crusader to lead us from evil and nail the bad guys to the wall, but we do need trust that government will protect us from the overt disregard for public safety these people, all or mostly men, who are the faces behind these actual murders by default.
Only Preet Bharara knows whether any of the aforementioned questions is applicable, but the mere fact that they can be reasonably asked should be disturbing to any person who is in the position of public trust including all those responsible for his appointment.
All of the above?
I don't really think we need a caped crusader to lead us from evil and nail the bad guys to the wall, but we do need trust that government will protect us from the overt disregard for public safety these people, all or mostly men, who are the faces behind these actual murders by default.
Only Preet Bharara knows whether any of the aforementioned questions is applicable, but the mere fact that they can be reasonably asked should be disturbing to any person who is in the position of public trust including all those responsible for his appointment.
7
Terrific article, Mr. Nocera.
Fines do not deter corporate crime. Executives consider a fine as just another cost of doing business.
Executives -- not scapegoat flunkies -- must be tried in a court of law and sent to jail when they are found guilty. Real prison, not country-club prison. This is genuine, effective deterrence.
BTW, once the wealthy go to jail, prison reform will follow quickly.
Fines do not deter corporate crime. Executives consider a fine as just another cost of doing business.
Executives -- not scapegoat flunkies -- must be tried in a court of law and sent to jail when they are found guilty. Real prison, not country-club prison. This is genuine, effective deterrence.
BTW, once the wealthy go to jail, prison reform will follow quickly.
45
Ya, we don't need no stinkin government regulations. The government is the problem after all...duh!
31
"Ya, we don't need no stinkin government regulations. " is not the same as we don't need any regulations. Whats wrong with getting rid of the "stinkin" ones and keeping those focused on eliminating fraud and promoting transparency, and protecting the health and property of the general population from a producers production (dumping in a lake, dirty smoke stacks, ...)
I believe a free market does not imply anarchy / no regulations, but rather focuses on regulations that eliminate fraud, and protects the health and property of others from wrongful damage by a producer. In other words I can't cell BSE beef as good meat. Nor can I sell you .95 gallons of gas as a gallon and keep the difference. I can't operate a small pig farm or a noisy business with a night shift in a suburban neighborhood.
There are other regulations that are arguably "stinking regulation". Suppose an 18 year old living at home for the summer saving for college. wanting to take a fast food job at $12 hours per hour and the owner wanting to hire them at that wage. Also suppose there was a minimum wage regulation for fast food work of $15 / hour and the aspiring student ended up unemployed that summer. Might that be a "stinkin" regulations.
Lets keep appropriate regulations and dispense with the "stinkin" ones. Does that make sense.
John
I believe a free market does not imply anarchy / no regulations, but rather focuses on regulations that eliminate fraud, and protects the health and property of others from wrongful damage by a producer. In other words I can't cell BSE beef as good meat. Nor can I sell you .95 gallons of gas as a gallon and keep the difference. I can't operate a small pig farm or a noisy business with a night shift in a suburban neighborhood.
There are other regulations that are arguably "stinking regulation". Suppose an 18 year old living at home for the summer saving for college. wanting to take a fast food job at $12 hours per hour and the owner wanting to hire them at that wage. Also suppose there was a minimum wage regulation for fast food work of $15 / hour and the aspiring student ended up unemployed that summer. Might that be a "stinkin" regulations.
Lets keep appropriate regulations and dispense with the "stinkin" ones. Does that make sense.
John
If the government only takes stockholder money and let's the guilty go free, they are not a deterrent
2
Martha Stewart went to the clink for lying to FBI investigators... she didn't even do any insider trading, she just wasn't honest enough in her answers to their questions. Yet these guys walk.
I rarely agree with Richard Blumenthal, but I think he's right in this instance. A couple of perp walks and jail sentences would go a long way toward making our products safer.
I rarely agree with Richard Blumenthal, but I think he's right in this instance. A couple of perp walks and jail sentences would go a long way toward making our products safer.
51
Corporations are not people.. contrary to whatever Mitt Romney might believe.
They are however run by people. In China they shoot bad corporate players.. Don't think we should do that here. But for every dime some CE.. whatever is trying to protect in their pay package and they let people die.. There should be big time jail time. How hard is that to to understand?
They are however run by people. In China they shoot bad corporate players.. Don't think we should do that here. But for every dime some CE.. whatever is trying to protect in their pay package and they let people die.. There should be big time jail time. How hard is that to to understand?
16
Dear Mr. Nocera,
Thanks for bringing to my attention the fact the sentencing is not fair.
I have no idea!
Ha, ha, ha.
No, you are right...if you are advocating that GM executives also be sent to prison. I'm not sure about the 28 years, but at least 10 years, a typical sentence of someone convicted of manslaughter due to extreme indifference to life.
And why not mention that Bernie Madoff was actually a Boy Scout compared to many others, like Bush and Cheney, who got off Scot-free after destroying the lives of thousands of young Americans as a part of a huge and fraudulent criminal enterprise in Iraq?
Thanks for bringing to my attention the fact the sentencing is not fair.
I have no idea!
Ha, ha, ha.
No, you are right...if you are advocating that GM executives also be sent to prison. I'm not sure about the 28 years, but at least 10 years, a typical sentence of someone convicted of manslaughter due to extreme indifference to life.
And why not mention that Bernie Madoff was actually a Boy Scout compared to many others, like Bush and Cheney, who got off Scot-free after destroying the lives of thousands of young Americans as a part of a huge and fraudulent criminal enterprise in Iraq?
39
To paraphrase Leona Helmsley, only little people have to take personal responsibility for their actions.
17
Boy you got that right Garak.
“If you submit a false statement to a federally insured bank in connection with a $500 loan, prosecutors can go after you. " And they will. And waste Large amounts of federal dollars doing it.
And yet we have a Man (Widely admired by Many) running for President who claims to be Rich, but every Dime this man has Made has been Falsely Acquired through Dishonest Banking Practices & Fleecing others.
This person & thousands of other so-called 1%er's have amassed their Vast wealth Dishonestly & absolutely None of them will ever be charged with a Single crime.
“If you submit a false statement to a federally insured bank in connection with a $500 loan, prosecutors can go after you. " And they will. And waste Large amounts of federal dollars doing it.
And yet we have a Man (Widely admired by Many) running for President who claims to be Rich, but every Dime this man has Made has been Falsely Acquired through Dishonest Banking Practices & Fleecing others.
This person & thousands of other so-called 1%er's have amassed their Vast wealth Dishonestly & absolutely None of them will ever be charged with a Single crime.
1
It is tragic that the Obama administration lacked the courage to take criminal action against GM. Perhaps they feared an uprising on the right?
2
Great article. Send a copy to Bharara.
Compare also the treatment of GM - not even a slap on the wrist for a corporation that size - and its executives, whose actions directly led to dozens of deaths, to the severe penalties and criminal charges that will likely be meted out to Volkswagen, whose executives knowingly and intentionally violated pollution laws but whose actions did not lead to a single death. GM literally got away with murder(s).
7
Absolutely agree with Mr. Nocera's fine op-ed that prosecution in the US should focus on the CEO's of corporations that knowingly commit fraud instead of relying on large fines. Where there's a will, there's a way should be the motto since these top executives must know types of cost cutting measures are taking places whether they're endangering people with food allergies or drivers or the environment. There is something very admirable about Japan's emphasis on honor within every area of life & determination to send the top people who've been found guilty of crimes to walk the trail of head hanging low shame to their expulsion from civil law abiding society. No other country has mastered this particular level of sophisticated cultural significance on familial honor, respect for the code of ethics & societal outcast for those who disobey the rules. China knowingly allows business people to cut corners while keeping a government denial face of innocence. The highly successful company Alibaba regularly markets brand name copies on the internet for a fraction of the original's price while the government takes a blind eye approach to commerce. As the actor Rob low said, all's fair in business & trade. The US is a clandestine participant in illegal activity if it doesn't hold CEOs accountable for wrong doing especially when it results in human suffering. Corporations are not people! The legal system needs to criminal indict & send to prison any CEO who breaks the law.
8
I think one of the reasons people are reluctant to bring criminal cases against the executives of these large corporations is that many folks understand that there is so much bureaucracy in these places, and the process diffuses responsibility so much, that it's not really just to hold any one person or small group accountable. But yet, when it comes to compensation, we readily believe that the top people are fully responsible for the success of the business, and so deserve huge amounts of compensation. It's the reverse of the old saying about success having many fathers.
10
In India there have been many deaths due to food poisoning. Many hotels in Hyderabad serve meat that is already in the decomposed state. The food inspectors often receive complaints about the food quality, but do not check the state of the food in the restaurant because they receive huge amounts as bribes. Even if the officials check the hotel, they give a clean chit to it. In developing countries like India this is a serious problem.
3
I could not agree more, but this is not just about corporate greed & crime; this is also about politics, corruption & treachery. Not only GM, but NSA director Alexander and Intelligence James Clapper have been caught lying to Congress. At least GM had to pay a fine.
The government serves the powerful, not the rule of law. Jail is for the powerless. If you have enough power, Congress will even rewrite the law to make your past acts legal, as they did with Citibank when Clinton was president and the telecoms under Obama. The first president Bush rewarded numerous felons (including John Poindexter, Elliott Abrams, John Negroponte, etc) for their crimes with appointments to high positions. GW Bush was able to resurrect Abrams for a position without even generating controversy. Cheney and other members of the Bush administration continue to brag about their crimes, assured by President Obama prosecution is for the little people. The systemic corruptions pervades government, industry, and both parties. Deterring crime is not their job; covering it up and keeping the public divided against itself instead of against them is their job.
The government serves the powerful, not the rule of law. Jail is for the powerless. If you have enough power, Congress will even rewrite the law to make your past acts legal, as they did with Citibank when Clinton was president and the telecoms under Obama. The first president Bush rewarded numerous felons (including John Poindexter, Elliott Abrams, John Negroponte, etc) for their crimes with appointments to high positions. GW Bush was able to resurrect Abrams for a position without even generating controversy. Cheney and other members of the Bush administration continue to brag about their crimes, assured by President Obama prosecution is for the little people. The systemic corruptions pervades government, industry, and both parties. Deterring crime is not their job; covering it up and keeping the public divided against itself instead of against them is their job.
10
Fining a corporation money is akin to fining the ocean water. The supply is inexhaustible and they will never miss it. Bharara blew it (like all the others). GM should see people going to jail. Once they knew the ignition system was killing people they should have stopped using it and recalled all the cars that had it installed. The conscious act of continuing with that ignition deserves jail time for those who made that decision. That's what that criminal act deserves. Whether its stops other execs from similar callous action in the name of profits above everything else, I do not know, but that is a secondary concern. Yet the prospect of talking to one's family through a wire screen for the next 10 years certainly should give one pause!
28
Amen, Joe Nocera, amen.
The question remains, however, how to prosecute and send to prison individual heads of financial institutions who knowingly, illegally cause harm and destroy lives/livelihoods. Eric Holder did a terrible job at that, perhaps his predecessor will do better. Judging from the FIFA news, there may be a shred of hope.
As long as corporations are paying off the settlements for criminal behavior, and individuals are not held accountable, the rot will continue.
Put another way: corporations are not people, no matter what Citizens United and (Supreme Court) friends say.
The question remains, however, how to prosecute and send to prison individual heads of financial institutions who knowingly, illegally cause harm and destroy lives/livelihoods. Eric Holder did a terrible job at that, perhaps his predecessor will do better. Judging from the FIFA news, there may be a shred of hope.
As long as corporations are paying off the settlements for criminal behavior, and individuals are not held accountable, the rot will continue.
Put another way: corporations are not people, no matter what Citizens United and (Supreme Court) friends say.
5
If Corps are people when it comes to free speech then we should be able to send these "people" to jail. Start enforcing the Rico laws.
Show me a corporation you can put in a cell and turn the key on for criminal behavior and I'll buy the corporate personhood story. Until then, I'm sticking with the classic living, breathing definition of person. And our laws should too.
This is a tempest in a teapot and both Parnell and auto executives (and everyone else in business) know it.
The sad truth is that Parnell will spend the profits from deadly food appealing these convictions well into his golden years and will likely never leave his posh dwelling to spend a day behind bars. Similarly, auto executives have nearly infinite corporate resources to stall, finagle, appeal and obfuscate legal proceedings and will pay congress directly if necessary.
Contrast this with someone stopped for a broken taillight and charged (though not convicted) with a minor drug offense - possession of several marijuana seeds for instance. The law provides that all of their worldly goods can be summarily seized and used for anything that the local jurisdiction desires, ranging from paying for officers' kids' college tuition to a new police building. They are left without recourse and their future is immediately and permanently doomed as they are thrown out on the streets.
To quote Bryan Stevenson: "We have a system of justice in this country that treats you much better if you're rich and guilty than if you're poor and innocent. Wealth, not culpability, shapes outcomes."
The sad truth is that Parnell will spend the profits from deadly food appealing these convictions well into his golden years and will likely never leave his posh dwelling to spend a day behind bars. Similarly, auto executives have nearly infinite corporate resources to stall, finagle, appeal and obfuscate legal proceedings and will pay congress directly if necessary.
Contrast this with someone stopped for a broken taillight and charged (though not convicted) with a minor drug offense - possession of several marijuana seeds for instance. The law provides that all of their worldly goods can be summarily seized and used for anything that the local jurisdiction desires, ranging from paying for officers' kids' college tuition to a new police building. They are left without recourse and their future is immediately and permanently doomed as they are thrown out on the streets.
To quote Bryan Stevenson: "We have a system of justice in this country that treats you much better if you're rich and guilty than if you're poor and innocent. Wealth, not culpability, shapes outcomes."
76
Or you can be stopped for a broken taillight and shot dead!
You know the drill. UNIONS. GM and Obama unions did not want bad stuff to happen to GM, messes with Union pensions etc. Cant do much to GM with Obama leftist fronting for them
Tell us about the unions at Peanut Corporation of America. Further, unions have no qualms about the CEO going to the slammer.
Some will never pass up an opportunity to make unjustified attacks on unions.
Some will never pass up an opportunity to make unjustified attacks on unions.
1
Wait a minute, all these corporations are supposed to self-regulate, there is no need for government regulations or over site. Most GOP voters do not realize, if they ever get caught up in medical-drug-hospital complex, or prison-law enforcement, prosecution complex or student loan complex, they will go broke. Only democrats propose and try to pass legislation that is friedly to 99% while Gop stays focused on 1%. GOP, don't get sick, make sure you kid does not get caught with pot, and don't take out hefty loans.
4
Thousands of Times readers have been saying this since 2008. But in general the Times is part of the culture of impunity. John Paulson is the 113th richest man in the world (Forbes). He got there in part by designing defective financial products for Goldman Sachs then betting against them. Why is this not fraud? When Paulson gave $100 million to the Central Park Conservancy, the only question the Times asked was whether some of the money would be going to other boroughs. Not where the money came from. Now he has given 400 million to Harvard. As Makcolm Gladwell suggested, it could go to set up the John Paulson School of Financisl Engineering.
9
Eating the bad peanuts directly caused the deaths. The faulty airbags did not directly cause the injuries - motor vehicle accidents did.
1
Actually sir, this is factually incorrect. The accidents should not and would not have been fatal - and in some cases, there would not even have been accidents - but for GM's faulty ignitions switching off and leading to drivers losing control. GM was directly at fault and directly culpable, at least as much as the company that sold tainted peanuts, and its actions directly caused deaths. Which is why, as Mr. Nocera points out, the non-prosecution of GM and its officials was incomprehensible and a contravention of justice.
1
One of the differences between the cases cited is that Parnell, CEO of Peanut Corp. of America (PCA), was convicted of knowingly causing the problems for which he and others were indicted; another was that the food recall occasioned by the infractions was the largest in U.S. history, involving at least 361 companies and 3,913 different products manufactured using PCA ingredients (according to Wikipedia) – Parnell shipped food products tested positively to contain salmonella, after “re-testing”. It hasn’t yet been charged that individuals at GM knew that their actions would lead to patently unacceptable risks of accidents and deaths, even when some had occurred (as they always do) – just a higher risk than otherwise would be the case. If we required that products needed to be engineered and manufactured so as to remove ALL risk of fatal mishap, only Warren Buffett and Bill Gates could afford to buy the products.
Bharara also should have admitted that a federal case brought in one jurisdiction may well be different from another brought in different venue. The objectives of the two prosecutors may be different and the distractions to prosecutorial staff by other major cases different.
The fraud argument strong, yet, it wasn’t THAT hard to prove fraud in a $25 million company (PCA), while proving it against individuals at a corporation with the resources of GM is another matter entirely.
All that said, we’d all like to see more prosecutions of culpable executives.
Bharara also should have admitted that a federal case brought in one jurisdiction may well be different from another brought in different venue. The objectives of the two prosecutors may be different and the distractions to prosecutorial staff by other major cases different.
The fraud argument strong, yet, it wasn’t THAT hard to prove fraud in a $25 million company (PCA), while proving it against individuals at a corporation with the resources of GM is another matter entirely.
All that said, we’d all like to see more prosecutions of culpable executives.
1
Absolutely, prosecute the executives - including bank CEOs - who create a culture of 'make it happen, don't tell me how'. But also prosecute the 'little guys' - the engineer who knew the ignition switch wouldn't hold, yet deferred to his manager; the programmer who - as instructed - wrote the code to disable emissions controls; the plant manager who reluctantly agreed to 'just ship it'. A few short but visible jail terms would be enough for the next engineer, programmer, plant manager to respond 'No way - I'll go to jail'.
5
Going after the little guy plays right into the big guy's hands. The CEO will throw as many little guys under the bus as necessary to save himself. Use the little primarily as a stepping stone to the big guys and things will change.
Nocera is absolutely correct about this. There was fraud, and individuals should be held accountable for it. Doing so is legal, just, and will improve future auto safety.
3
Who did GM (or the GM execs) donate to so that Preet Bharara didn't go after G.M the way that Mike Moore went after Parnell?
Inquiring minds want to know...
Inquiring minds want to know...
It's not Preet's fault. Where there is no will, there is no way. Excerpt from the GM subcommittee hearing in April:
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. CLAIRE MCCASKILL TO HON. DAVID J. FRIEDMAN
Question 1. A person who fails to report auto safety defects to the National High- way Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is subject to criminal penalties under 49 U.S.C. 30170. However, it is not clear the provision has ever been used to pursue criminal prosecutions. The provision further stipulates that the Attorney General may only seek such criminal penalties at the request of the Secretary of Transpor- tation.
Question 1a. Please list all cases brought by the Department of Justice using the criminal penalties in 49 U.S.C. 30170.
Answer. I am not aware of any such cases.
Question 1b. Please list all instances in which the Secretary of Transportation has ever asked the Department of Justice to pursue charges using the criminal penalties in 49 U.S.C. 30170.
Answer. I am not aware of any formal requests. I cannot comment with regard to informal, privileged conversations.
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. CLAIRE MCCASKILL TO HON. DAVID J. FRIEDMAN
Question 1. A person who fails to report auto safety defects to the National High- way Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is subject to criminal penalties under 49 U.S.C. 30170. However, it is not clear the provision has ever been used to pursue criminal prosecutions. The provision further stipulates that the Attorney General may only seek such criminal penalties at the request of the Secretary of Transpor- tation.
Question 1a. Please list all cases brought by the Department of Justice using the criminal penalties in 49 U.S.C. 30170.
Answer. I am not aware of any such cases.
Question 1b. Please list all instances in which the Secretary of Transportation has ever asked the Department of Justice to pursue charges using the criminal penalties in 49 U.S.C. 30170.
Answer. I am not aware of any formal requests. I cannot comment with regard to informal, privileged conversations.
11
We have become too sophisticated. Maybe we need to go back to a more immediate, emotional reaction to fraud and selling tainted wares to the public- we could simply "ride them out of town on a rail, tarred and feathered".
1
I certainly agree with this but it may not come to pass any time soon. Another approach - perhaps almost as effective - would be to tie the personal wealth of corporate executives to the behavior of the corporation. Right now we reward risk taking and successful fraud with personal advancement, salary increases and bonuses. The downside is only for the corporation. Let's have executive's personal wealth tied to the behavior of the corporations they manage.
3
Absolutely right! There is no justice when those responsible are able to walk away, often with golden parachutes. Winterkorn, Diamond, Blankfein come to mind.
4
Many senior executives aware of potential damages or risks make their decisions through the lens of a key phrase "this is a business decision" --the costs and lost profits to correct a problem justify ignoring it. If the key phrase were "this is a criminal law decision" and we could go to jail if we're wrong, you can bet they'd make different choices.
11
There is not one reason not to prosecute GM.
Maybe Mary Barra is doing Preet some side favors.
Maybe Mary Barra is doing Preet some side favors.
But be black or poor and drive without a seat belt...
15
Following that logic, there should be no hesitation to indict VW executives for their blatant fraud against mankind and the environment.
3
"Corporations are people too." The laws are written by the foxes and all the hens realize this. In our "Ownership" society, aren't the hens responsible for ensuring their own safety? Thanks, Mr.Nocera, for your Quixotic columns , that consistently keep aiming Spears at the windmills!
7
If we could all buy our way out of justice, we'd all be killers. Let's get rid of the fines and impose real prison sentences on corporate criminals.
6
"It is instead the single most powerful deterrent imaginable — far more powerful than a fine, which is meaningless to a company like G.M."
That is an important truth.
For the actual decision makers, it is not their money. It is their prison term.
In fact, for the actual decision makers, the profits now matter and the fines later don't. They make money personally for the crime,on the immediate quarterly reports on which their compensation is based. Somebody else later pays the fine.
Even there, the fine seems to be far less than the profits, so it was a "good business decision." In the shareholder value model of corporate responsibility , management had an obligation to commit the crime.
We get these crimes because we set ourselves up to get them.
Corporate lobbyists help write those laws, and nobody else is getting an input concerned for the people they kill and maim.
That is an important truth.
For the actual decision makers, it is not their money. It is their prison term.
In fact, for the actual decision makers, the profits now matter and the fines later don't. They make money personally for the crime,on the immediate quarterly reports on which their compensation is based. Somebody else later pays the fine.
Even there, the fine seems to be far less than the profits, so it was a "good business decision." In the shareholder value model of corporate responsibility , management had an obligation to commit the crime.
We get these crimes because we set ourselves up to get them.
Corporate lobbyists help write those laws, and nobody else is getting an input concerned for the people they kill and maim.
29
Some people have argued the perverse view that executives have a duty as corporate fiduciaries to violate the law as long as the benefits to the corporation exceed the costs. (This view is held by 7th Cir. Judge Frank H. Easterbrook and his co-author Daniel R. Fischel. See, e.g., The Economic Structure of Corporate Law.)
All who would like to see corporations behave responsibly must, as Mr. Nocera cogently argues, find and create ways to hold decision makers within the corporations personally responsible--in appropriate cases with criminal sanctions. Otherwise, a variety of incentives and pressures will continue to conspire to promote corporate wrong doing and disadvantage honest companies. As to available remedies in the GM case (and now in the VW case as well), prosecutors should consider using the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), which provides the kinds of penalties that would focus the minds of hundreds of thousands of executives tempted to commit fraud or otherwise break the law.
All who would like to see corporations behave responsibly must, as Mr. Nocera cogently argues, find and create ways to hold decision makers within the corporations personally responsible--in appropriate cases with criminal sanctions. Otherwise, a variety of incentives and pressures will continue to conspire to promote corporate wrong doing and disadvantage honest companies. As to available remedies in the GM case (and now in the VW case as well), prosecutors should consider using the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), which provides the kinds of penalties that would focus the minds of hundreds of thousands of executives tempted to commit fraud or otherwise break the law.
58
Nocera, thank you. Keep writing until everyone realizes the game is rigged and we fix it. People who sacrifice lives for their own profit are cheating in other ways too. And there is a lot of other cheating that does not involve sacrificing lives. The cheating is endemic to business and politics. We absolutely need to expose cheating and discourage it with swift and severe punishment.
26
Unless they are personally held liable, through jail time, fines levied against their own bank accounts, or both, corporate executives are in a "Heads, I win, tails you lose" position. Preet's settlement with GM is paid by shareholders (often pension funds and the like) and insurers, who had no possible way to know about or remedy the problem. Those responsible at worst resign, keeping any salary, bonuses and severance they earned along the way.
Preet has gotten kudos, and rightly so, for vigorous prosecution of corruption in New York State government. If he handled those as he handled GM, instead of indicting Silver, Skelos and the rest, he would have settled with the State and had it pay a fine to be picked up by taxpayers.
Preet has gotten kudos, and rightly so, for vigorous prosecution of corruption in New York State government. If he handled those as he handled GM, instead of indicting Silver, Skelos and the rest, he would have settled with the State and had it pay a fine to be picked up by taxpayers.
12
I think the idea of confiscating wealth from those who have the responsibility for what has happened under their leadership is the only thing that will resonate with these people. The federal government taking every penny of the fine, first from Rick Scott of Florida for his company bilking Medicare would have left him unable to buy his way into the governorship. Stripped of personal wealth the latest high profile CEO to resign, that smirking character from United Airlines, wouldn't even be able to afford a coach ticket back to live in his moms basement, if we made those responsible pay the fines. Instead none of these guys or gals (Carly) get to feel the sting of responsibility. Who actual pays when we allow spreading out the fine and the severance amongst the shareholders of the company? The little guys, again. Take their money, it seems to be the only thing they have any concern about.
Prosecuting GM managers personally for a failure that took collectively a whole slew of people to accomplish may just be too risky.
If we believe that a jail sentence is a great deterrent, what would an acquittal be? Proving to execs that murkying up the chain of information and decision making - guaranteeing plausible deniability as an effective defense - would increase the incentive to try to get away with things.
The law for personal criminal liability is pretty restrictive, leaving any reasonable doubt an excuse for acquittal. It may be just too hard to pin GMs failure on a small enough group of people to assure a conviction.
If we believe that a jail sentence is a great deterrent, what would an acquittal be? Proving to execs that murkying up the chain of information and decision making - guaranteeing plausible deniability as an effective defense - would increase the incentive to try to get away with things.
The law for personal criminal liability is pretty restrictive, leaving any reasonable doubt an excuse for acquittal. It may be just too hard to pin GMs failure on a small enough group of people to assure a conviction.
In all of this discussion I see nothing about command responsibility. This principle was well-established during the Tokyo war crimes trial, and should still be valid. Once CEOs understood that they were responsible for what happens during their tenure in office, they would make every effort to curb abuses.
39
You would think that there would be some sort of legal responsibility, right? But I haven't seen much in American law - outside of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act - that assigns criminal responsibility personally to executives and management for actions that have happened on their watch but which may not be able to be *proven* that they directly knew about and enabled. Responsibility is assigned to the corporation. That is why Scandal 101 - apologize, assign a well known investigator, throw an underling under the bus, hire Kenneth Feinberg to administer apology fund, move on - works so well.
5
Steve Landers -- "about command responsibility"
Our laws equate knew to should have known.
Our laws equate knowing to reckless disregard without checking.
Our laws do eliminate the excuses concerning command responsibility. You're right.
Our laws equate knew to should have known.
Our laws equate knowing to reckless disregard without checking.
Our laws do eliminate the excuses concerning command responsibility. You're right.
4
A number of years ago I sat in an audience of teachers who heard a conservative economist explain why government regulations (in this case of prescription medicines and physician certification) harmed the economy. He claimed that such interference reduced competition and drove up costs, making the economy less efficient.
Someone asked him to explain how to prevent the production of potentially harmful medicines and dangerously incompetent doctors, which was the purpose of the regulations. His answer was that one could always sue the pharmaceutical company or the responsible physician. I thought to myself, great, my wife dies from taking a defective medicine, but I can always get some money out of the manufacturer.
The disproportionate effects of the harm and the remedy struck me as being outrageous, but the economist was deadly serious. In his abstract analysis, the regulations made the economy less efficient, and that was what mattered. His cost/benefit analysis translated a human life into a certain amount of money, to be weighed in the scales against the production cost of the pharmaceutical firm. It was this "scientific" approach that he hoped the teachers would incorporate into their courses.
Although Mr. Nocera is not writing about the lack of regulations, in fact the problems related to the effective prosecution of company executives stem in part from a conservative mindset that opposes the enactment of rigorous laws.
Someone asked him to explain how to prevent the production of potentially harmful medicines and dangerously incompetent doctors, which was the purpose of the regulations. His answer was that one could always sue the pharmaceutical company or the responsible physician. I thought to myself, great, my wife dies from taking a defective medicine, but I can always get some money out of the manufacturer.
The disproportionate effects of the harm and the remedy struck me as being outrageous, but the economist was deadly serious. In his abstract analysis, the regulations made the economy less efficient, and that was what mattered. His cost/benefit analysis translated a human life into a certain amount of money, to be weighed in the scales against the production cost of the pharmaceutical firm. It was this "scientific" approach that he hoped the teachers would incorporate into their courses.
Although Mr. Nocera is not writing about the lack of regulations, in fact the problems related to the effective prosecution of company executives stem in part from a conservative mindset that opposes the enactment of rigorous laws.
131
Let's not forget that often the same people who advocate for low- or zero-regulation and say that it's okay because victims can always sue the responsible parties are also the ones who advocate "reforming" the tort process to make it much harder for the little guy to ever win a meaningful settlement.
9
Please see the "fraud" prosecution. It was not a regulatory transgression. Use the law to engage fear and shame so maybe we can have a massive shift in society's approach to industry, government, and each other. A little more "please", "may I" and "thank you" would go a long way too.
...remember however that conservatives also hate lawyers and litigation about as much as government regulation...could there be a pattern here?
4
It pretty much has to be lawful to sell dangerous things - all cars (for example) are to some degree dangerous. Moreover, different consumers may respond differently to different risks and be willing to pay different amounts to avoid them.
However, it should not be lawful to conceal the fact that there is mortally dangerous defect in a device you have sold or (more importantly) will sell in the future. If such concealment, particularly if such concealment is motivated by a desire to avoid responsibility for a prior engineering defect, is lawful, our laws need changing.
However, it should not be lawful to conceal the fact that there is mortally dangerous defect in a device you have sold or (more importantly) will sell in the future. If such concealment, particularly if such concealment is motivated by a desire to avoid responsibility for a prior engineering defect, is lawful, our laws need changing.
12
The day that the Supreme Court decided corporations were people and money is free speech, America's elite and corporate heads have found their protection within the law. I'm very surprised that killing only 9 people is more important than killing 124. Or would it be that a corporate head of a company that sells peanut butter isn't quite as important as the heads of the auto industry whose money goes very far to aid politicians of all stripes.
36
So far, corporations are people only for the benefits, not for the responsibilities.
7
I am always amused by the selective responsibility of corporate executives who, when profits and stock values are up, crow about how they are responsible for the good news and bonuses are due. But when the bad news arrives, they shrug their shoulders, claim ignorance, and bail out of the burning airplane with their golden parachutes.
As the nephew of one of the first victims of GM's defective ignition switches, that amusement has turned to anger that the GM execs got away with murder.
As the nephew of one of the first victims of GM's defective ignition switches, that amusement has turned to anger that the GM execs got away with murder.
159
The pattern of ignoring the obvious (the criminal conduct of high level corporate executives) has been the way of life in the treatment of Big Pharma for at least the past forty years. Back in the 1980s, Eli Lilly and Co. was charged with twenty-five felony counts for marketing a drug that had killed several hundred citizens in the UK before it was approved in the U.S. without Lilly ever telling the FDA. When Americans started dying immediately after approval, a federal iudge allowed Lilly to plead guilty to twenty-five misdemeanors (causing the federal prosecutor to resign in protest). An indictment remains under seal against the Upjohn Company since 1998 for its fraud in marketing Halcion. A high-level FDA official moved from the agency over to Upjohn as its CEO and Upjohn has never been held responsible. The list is nearly endless and these are only two examples as evidenced by the recent Johnson and Johnson fiasco. If we paid as much attention to corporate terrorism as we do to the extremely rare foreign acts, this country and its people would be a lot safer. Big money talks, folks.
104
Jail to the corrupt crony capitalist corporate criminal thieves and chiefs of Wall Street would be easy but for the revolving door between powerful corporate law firms and politically appointed government "service".
Both before and after his term of service, former U..S. Attorney General Eric Holder was a senior partner at the most powerful corporate politically domestically and internationally connected law firm in Washington D.C. -Covington and Burling. Every U.S. Attorney has to answer to the Attorney General. Public "service" as a senior federal prosecutor is also a frequent stepping stone to a political career.
Moreover, since corporations are people and money is speech, then some corporations are "more equal than others" Everyone knows that GM stands for General Motors. But who knew that PCA stands for Peanut Corporation of America? And whoever heard of Stewart Parnell?
Both before and after his term of service, former U..S. Attorney General Eric Holder was a senior partner at the most powerful corporate politically domestically and internationally connected law firm in Washington D.C. -Covington and Burling. Every U.S. Attorney has to answer to the Attorney General. Public "service" as a senior federal prosecutor is also a frequent stepping stone to a political career.
Moreover, since corporations are people and money is speech, then some corporations are "more equal than others" Everyone knows that GM stands for General Motors. But who knew that PCA stands for Peanut Corporation of America? And whoever heard of Stewart Parnell?
36
And wouldn't fraud charges have applied to the bankers? heck, they as much as admitted to it. And if not fraud then why not invoke Sarbanes - Oxley? That law was designed to prevent the kind of systemic financial fraud that the bankers committed in the Bush era, and it is another tool that cautious (or perhaps coopted) prosecutors left in the toolbag.
Until the revolving door stops revolving, or the Justice Department becomes populated with more people like Mike Moore, then narrow reading of the law and overcaution will be the excuse for not prosecuting white collar criminals.
Until the revolving door stops revolving, or the Justice Department becomes populated with more people like Mike Moore, then narrow reading of the law and overcaution will be the excuse for not prosecuting white collar criminals.
15
The criminals at the top of American society do what they always do: clog up the court and regulatory system until the statute of limitations run out.
1
The marriage of corporate money and politicians in need of constant funding makes it unlikely that the Parnell decision will create a wave of change In executive behavior or executive prosecutions.
10
The failure of this peanut company goes far beyond just the CEO.
Every quality control technician of this company was a failure also. Open railway cars holding peanuts littered the factory yard, birds eating and defecating on the peanuts which were left out in open. Any fool could see there was going to be a quality problem. We were lucky that Salmonella was the only bacteria implicated. I never met an infection that I liked.
Every quality control technician of this company was a failure also. Open railway cars holding peanuts littered the factory yard, birds eating and defecating on the peanuts which were left out in open. Any fool could see there was going to be a quality problem. We were lucky that Salmonella was the only bacteria implicated. I never met an infection that I liked.
23
The difference between the CEO and the quality control technicians is one of control. The technicians, while they may have know of the problem, had no control over the outcome. Had they voiced their concerns (maybe they did, I don't know the details) and were ignored, they had two choices -- quit their jobs and/or go to the news media. Neither of those are great choices in a world where jobs are scarce unless one is willing to work for minimum wage and the vast majority of our news media is owned by six large corporations. The CEO, on the other hand, had full control of the situation and willingly chose to distribute tainted food.
While I am all for prosecuting executives responsible for corporate malfeasance, I'm afraid that in the end it will be low-level employees who pay the price. As executives become aware that they just might be held responsible for their own actions, they will take steps to insure that someone else, someone whose paycheck they control, takes the blame for the executives' actions. As was well-known in every factory I ever worked in "Feces [though that wasn't exactly the word used] rolls downhill." And at the bottom of that hill is the employee who has no protection.
And "business" has an entire political party on their side. I predict a Republican-sponsored bill designed to protect executives from legal action will soon be introduced.
While I am all for prosecuting executives responsible for corporate malfeasance, I'm afraid that in the end it will be low-level employees who pay the price. As executives become aware that they just might be held responsible for their own actions, they will take steps to insure that someone else, someone whose paycheck they control, takes the blame for the executives' actions. As was well-known in every factory I ever worked in "Feces [though that wasn't exactly the word used] rolls downhill." And at the bottom of that hill is the employee who has no protection.
And "business" has an entire political party on their side. I predict a Republican-sponsored bill designed to protect executives from legal action will soon be introduced.
10
It's amazing how rapidly the masters of the universe become meek know-nothing cogs in the great corporate wheel when it comes to accepting responsibility for the actions of the corporations they claim to lead and control. Yet these same executives never seem to show the same humility by rejecting a bonus based on corporate performance that they never-endingly take full credit for achieving.
What happened to the concept, so recently canonized by the Supreme Court and lauded by conservative Republicans, that corporations are people too? If individuals, not covered by the camouflage of corporate limited liability, had personally done the things that so many corporations are accused of doing, they would either be behind bars for a large portion of their lives or, at least in some states, executed.
When the end result to prosecution of a corporation is a tax-deductible fine to the company while a handful of senior executives "take one for the team" by pulling their golden parachutes and go off into a well-financed retirement, there is no deterrence to an endless repetition of such actions.
What happened to the concept, so recently canonized by the Supreme Court and lauded by conservative Republicans, that corporations are people too? If individuals, not covered by the camouflage of corporate limited liability, had personally done the things that so many corporations are accused of doing, they would either be behind bars for a large portion of their lives or, at least in some states, executed.
When the end result to prosecution of a corporation is a tax-deductible fine to the company while a handful of senior executives "take one for the team" by pulling their golden parachutes and go off into a well-financed retirement, there is no deterrence to an endless repetition of such actions.
143
Loretta Lynch will have a chance to show that the US has really moved on from Eric Holder's "no prosecution" legacy with the VW fraud case. Nearly 400,000 autos (in the US alone) deliberately modified to cheat on emissions testing is no small fraud. Some people need to be behind bars for that.
16
Preet, Preet, you were dragging your feet,
And GM's escape was complete,
Parnell got off well
No spell in a cell,
A hair breadth escape not so neat!
And GM's escape was complete,
Parnell got off well
No spell in a cell,
A hair breadth escape not so neat!
14
oops, got the wrong CEO.
6
Years before the salnonella incident, the Peanut Corporation of America was found on at least two occasions to have sold massive quantities of peanuts contaminated with aflatoxin, caused by mold.
Aflatoxin is a powerful promoter of liver cancer, so maybe the salmonella was viewed by the court as the third strike. Sounds like a very reasonable sentence to me.
Aflatoxin is a powerful promoter of liver cancer, so maybe the salmonella was viewed by the court as the third strike. Sounds like a very reasonable sentence to me.
34
In addition to Nocera's well-thought analysis, the question arises " How is GM progressing on replacing all the affected ignitions ? " addressing the issue of whether it's even a possibility of correcting such defects once the product stream has been so widely polluted ?
11
One of the complications with the General Motors case is that General Motors now is not the same company as when the ignition switches were used. However, that should have enabled prosecutors to indict those who made the decision at the time, rather than go after the current corporation.
12
There are those who believe that the GM Board, knowing the extent of the ignition problem, purposely voted to give the CEO job to a woman. She has done a brilliant job managing the company while conducting an investigation of the details surrounding the entire incident. If anyone were to be held accountable, it would be the now retired previous CEO who presided over GM when the series of operational malfeasance occurred.
4
I agree completely with Mr. Nocera. When the on-going crimes, were committed by GM and, more recently, VW executives, the shareholders paid immediately as the value of their stock investment in the company plummeted. In fact, VW shares dropped 17%.
And then, when the company is fined and/or forced to pay-out settlements, that money comes from the corporation's capital. That means that the shareholders pay a second time. But, why should the executives care--they still receive their pay and bonuses. A bonus for what…covering-up criminal acts?
Until the corporations admit criminal activity and guilt, and the executives face trial and potential financial loss and, perhaps jail time, they have no reason to shy away from doing it again. As long as someone else pays for the criminal acts, and they come out whole, these criminal acts will never have any impact whatsoever.
The corporate executives just look at this as the cost of doing business. When you're caught, fake sincere regret, someone else pays--and they laugh all the way to the bank. This is also another good reason to separate the positions of CEO and Chairman.
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
And then, when the company is fined and/or forced to pay-out settlements, that money comes from the corporation's capital. That means that the shareholders pay a second time. But, why should the executives care--they still receive their pay and bonuses. A bonus for what…covering-up criminal acts?
Until the corporations admit criminal activity and guilt, and the executives face trial and potential financial loss and, perhaps jail time, they have no reason to shy away from doing it again. As long as someone else pays for the criminal acts, and they come out whole, these criminal acts will never have any impact whatsoever.
The corporate executives just look at this as the cost of doing business. When you're caught, fake sincere regret, someone else pays--and they laugh all the way to the bank. This is also another good reason to separate the positions of CEO and Chairman.
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
45
Convictions of individual executives are particularly necessary with too-big-to-fail companies like General Motors and the big mortgage lenders, banks, and Wall Street firms. Otherwise, the subsequent fines are just a cost of doing business that can be calculated on a spreadsheet. The threat of jail time, however, gets individual decision makers' attention.
72
We have long been willing to impose long sentences on street criminals, who are the least likely to be deterred -- a drug addict robbing a convenience store is generally not good at cost benefit analysis, or else he would not have become a drug addicted criminal.
Corporate executives are very good at cost benefit analysis, so deterrence is much more likely to work. Rather than a balance between quick money now versus the risk of the company paying a fine, the balance would be between quick money now versus the risk of personal ruination and jail.
The problem is that legislators and many voters don't view street criminals as fellow citizens, and could care less what happens to them, while they do identify with corporate executives and feel badly about ruining a life so much like theirs.
Corporate executives are very good at cost benefit analysis, so deterrence is much more likely to work. Rather than a balance between quick money now versus the risk of the company paying a fine, the balance would be between quick money now versus the risk of personal ruination and jail.
The problem is that legislators and many voters don't view street criminals as fellow citizens, and could care less what happens to them, while they do identify with corporate executives and feel badly about ruining a life so much like theirs.
4
It's telling that when deterrents actually work -- executives truly are terrified of jail, unlike criminals who are obliged to work the street -- the government isn't interested.
A few dozen life-altering sentences and American business would be instantly transformed. Move on to Congress and we might even have a decent government.
A few dozen life-altering sentences and American business would be instantly transformed. Move on to Congress and we might even have a decent government.
183
joe is right. i'm not saying that the peanut butter execs got longer sentences than they deserved but the tainted peanut butter resulted in 9 deaths while the general motors defective ignition switches killed more people than carter has liver pills.
preet's explanation does not seem logical or legally rational
preet's explanation does not seem logical or legally rational
13
The auto industry has long relied on simple math as business strategy - cheaper to pay for a few deaths, rather than massive recalls and retooling assembly lines to fix design or other flaws which would cost many millions more.
9
The US auto companies have and continue to spend 100s of millions in lobbying (legislating for their benefit). VW has not spent much, and penalties for them may well be different.
However, there is NO real peanut lobby on a large scale, other than the usual ag subsidies and tariffs and regulation to stop imports.
However, there is NO real peanut lobby on a large scale, other than the usual ag subsidies and tariffs and regulation to stop imports.
12
We need to examine the root of the problem. Why do we consistently elect representatives who are intent on destroying the parts of our government that are entrusted with keeping us healthy, both at the local, state, and national level? When did our views on corporate responsibility change to the point where some or all of Milton Friedman's ideas are accepted when it comes to what a corporation's duties are to the public, versus shareholders, and who, within a corporation makes decisions? How does money in politics tie into all this? How do we get control back?
We've been wasting precious bandwidth both in the written and broadcast media on the craziest of topics about candidates who, when it comes right down to it, have no mathematical chance of winning the next election. In great part, it seems to many like me, it is because of corporate media's self-interest in a society where Citizens United's effect is being felt full-bore. We should be examining the debate issues on the left. Bernie Sanders' policy prescriptions on racial justice, money and politics, the economy (including regulations from banking to food, drugs, and all other products,) versus those Hillary Clinton has disclosed. Neither candidate's economic plan has had a serious discussion as of yet. Corporate ethics debates are non-existent. I explore the roots of that problem in my latest essay.
http://www.rimaregas.com/2015/09/from-milton-friedman-to-ronald-dworkin-...
We've been wasting precious bandwidth both in the written and broadcast media on the craziest of topics about candidates who, when it comes right down to it, have no mathematical chance of winning the next election. In great part, it seems to many like me, it is because of corporate media's self-interest in a society where Citizens United's effect is being felt full-bore. We should be examining the debate issues on the left. Bernie Sanders' policy prescriptions on racial justice, money and politics, the economy (including regulations from banking to food, drugs, and all other products,) versus those Hillary Clinton has disclosed. Neither candidate's economic plan has had a serious discussion as of yet. Corporate ethics debates are non-existent. I explore the roots of that problem in my latest essay.
http://www.rimaregas.com/2015/09/from-milton-friedman-to-ronald-dworkin-...
81
Agree. Liberal news media enable the very people liberals dislike. That seems very destructive.
1
How about a slogan: I want my government back!
1
It would be a great precedent to extradite those at Volkswagen who authorized the creation of the software to evade emissions tests as well. While it is not a safety issue, it sure sounds like corporate fraud to me. And don't think people don't die from Diesel emissions. Although one can't point to a specific victim, there are many victims nonetheless.
36
We are going to extradite some FIFA soccer executives. And one India "rogue" trader for supposedly creating a stock market "crash" trading from his basement in London - doing what Wall Street does on a scale a thousand fold larger every day.
We have our priorities right, and we know who our enemies are. Pogo is now wrong - it is not "us".
We have our priorities right, and we know who our enemies are. Pogo is now wrong - it is not "us".
1
And why is Joe Nocera so much more conscientious about our safety than Preet Bharara and other government prosecutors (state and federal). (With several honorable exceptions, such as Mr. Mike Moore and whoever refused to obey the G.W. Bush administration order to begin false prosecutions against Democrats like Don Siegelman.
27
Remember the ignition problem was not exactly one where the product was put into circulation with the knowledge that it would cause deaths like the peanut butter was.
When the vehicles were tested they used on key, but the drivers whose ignition switches failed, had key rings weighted down with all sorts of things.
However when it was discovered what the cause of the failure was, GM did not do a recall, but they did issue a warning about using weighed key rings.
The difference was criminal intent.
When the vehicles were tested they used on key, but the drivers whose ignition switches failed, had key rings weighted down with all sorts of things.
However when it was discovered what the cause of the failure was, GM did not do a recall, but they did issue a warning about using weighed key rings.
The difference was criminal intent.
15
It's the reckless disregard for whether people will be killed or injured that pops out at me. We all know that defective cars can cause fatal accidents. So it seems to me that the combination of being reckless about whether one is putting out defective cars, together with one's cars actually causing deaths, ought to add up to some kind of punishable offense.
I appreciated the information in this column about the state of the law, its various interpretations, and how it might be used to produce prosecutions.
I appreciated the information in this column about the state of the law, its various interpretations, and how it might be used to produce prosecutions.
42
The public, politicians, and media are not focusing on the US highway accident situation and the enormous human and societal damage it causes, and are doing very little to reduce it.
If terrorists were killing 33,000 Americans per year and injuring more than 2 million, at a cost of almost 1 Trillion dollars annually, the public, politicians, and media would be up in arms, and taking every action they could to stop it. It is difficult to understand the difference in responses. The damage would be the same, yet Americans tend to think that highway accidents are inevitable and just have to be accepted, while terrorism must be fought tooth and nail.
My question, should our public officials particularly those in the highway safety business be held responsible in any way for the carnage?
I believe that we should increase the capacity of our highways by testing and certifying a remarkable new, energy efficient, 300 mph Maglev transport for highway freight trucks to carry trucks at only a fraction of driving costs.