Prosecuting Crimes Against the Earth

[babylonsister]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/04/opinion/04uhlmann.html

Prosecuting Crimes Against the Earth
By DAVID M. UHLMANN
Published: June 3, 2010

snip//

All three of the environmental laws that may have been broken provide for criminal penalties, but only the Clean Water Act includes felony charges. For the government to prove a felony violation of the act it would need to demonstrate that the defendant knew oil would be discharged into United States waters. A felony violation can be easy to prove when a business dumps waste into a river, but it’s harder in the case of an oil spill.

No one thinks BP, Transocean or Halliburton intended to spill oil into the gulf. But given good evidence, the government could argue that the companies cut corners or deviated so much from standard industry practice that they knew a blowout could happen. Or, the government could argue that, even if the initial gusher involved only negligence (a misdemeanor under the Clean Water Act) each additional day represents a knowing violation. Both approaches are untested, because there have been so few oil spill cases — but the gulf disaster warrants trying aggressive strategies.

Ultimately, the public would like to see oil company executives brought up on felony charges, leading to jail time that might inspire more careful drilling in the future. But only those directly involved in misconduct can be charged with crimes, and it is likely that executives of BP, Transocean and Halliburton played no such personal role in the disaster.

Faced with these challenges, the Justice Department must find out whether BP or the other companies misled the government about the integrity of the well, or the amount of oil gushing from it. This could be the basis for charges of felony obstruction of justice against the companies and individuals involved.

The Justice Department’s case against BP will be strengthened by the company’s history of criminal violations, which offer evidence of a culture that puts profits before the environment and worker safety. After a 2005 explosion at its Texas City refinery, which killed 15 workers, BP pleaded guilty to violating the Clean Air Act by failing to maintain a safe facility. It also pleaded guilty to violating the Clean Water Act by having corroded pipelines that caused oil spills in Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay in 2006.

Criminal prosecution cannot restore the gulf or end the suffering of the people who live along its shores. But it could ensure just punishment. And it would make it more likely that the companies involved would pay all claims for damage to the gulf coast, because the $75 million cap on liability, set by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, does not apply in criminal cases.

Most important, criminal prosecution would send a clear message that an environmental disaster of this magnitude cannot be allowed to happen again.

[Angry Dragon]

1. I would like to see the execs brought up on murder charges

Using the same logic from past experience that people died when safety was ignored

[Hawkowl]

3. More than ignored

It was much more sinister than simply ignoring safety. There was a cold blooded cost-benefit analysis done (referenced as the "3 little pigs" memo) done detailing at least the expense of building survivable housing for the oil rig workers. I am certain that there are other memos detailing projected "spills" and their associated costs.

To those who are skeptics, Ford Motor company was put on trial for exploding Pintos when the car was rear ended. It is now a classic tale taught in college law classes where it came to light that Ford did a projection of Pinto profits vs. defective Pinto death settlements. Profits won out. As it should in an unrestrained "free market" capitalist system.

[Captain Hilts]

2. Interesting! Thanks!