Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

A Nation of the Corporations, by the Corporations, for the Corporations

Posted by Jill Hussein C., Brilliant at Breakfast at 10:08 AM on April 9, 2008.


If you commit a crime, you can't 'defer' your prosecution.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

If you're an American corporation, you no longer have to worry about trials for wrongdoing. Under Michael Mukasey's justice department, justice is an admonition, a wink, and a handshake:

In a major shift of policy, the Justice Department, once known for taking down giant corporations, including the accounting firm Arthur Andersen, has put off prosecuting more than 50 companies suspected of wrongdoing over the last three years.

Instead, many companies, from boutique outfits to immense corporations like American Express, have avoided the cost and stigma of defending themselves against criminal charges with a so-called deferred prosecution agreement, which allows the government to collect fines and appoint an outside monitor to impose internal reforms without going through a trial. In many cases, the name of the monitor and the details of the agreement are kept secret.

Deferred prosecutions have become a favorite tool of the Bush administration. But some legal experts now wonder if the policy shift has led companies, in particular financial institutions now under investigation for their roles in the subprime mortgage debacle, to test the limits of corporate anti-fraud laws.

Firms have readily agreed to the deferred prosecutions, said Vikramaditya S. Khanna, a law professor at the University of Michigan who has studied their use, because "clearly it avoids a bigger headache for them."

Some lawyers suggest that companies may be willing to take more risks because they know that, if they are caught, the chances of getting a deferred prosecution are good. "Some companies may bear the risk" of legally questionable business practices if they believe they can cut a deal to defer their prosecution indefinitely, Mr. Khanna said.

Legal experts say the tactic may have sent the wrong signal to corporations -- the promise, in effect, of a get-out-of-jail-free card. The growing use of deferred prosecutions also suggests one road map the Justice Department might follow in the subprime mortgage investigations.

Gee, ya think?

It's interesting how you haven't heard Republicans run on the "tough on crime" platform in a long time. You may see "Willie Horton"-type ads today, but instead of fearmongering about criminals, they're more likely to take the form of casting doubt on That Scary Dark-Skinned Candidate Who May Be A Muslim And Even If He Isn't His Pastor Is a Very Mean Guy. Fear of terrorism has been effective for them, as has fear and loathing of immigrants. But you haven't seen them connect either of their boogeymen of choice to murders and rapes and property crimes. They haven't had to, when they can connect them to the toppling of buildings and "taking your job."

But it's understandable that they'd be cautious about playing the crime card, because when you have this stern Republican history of "actions have consequences", combined with the special exemptions for corporations and other Friends of Republicans, pointing out this discrepancy might cause people to ask questions. And you can't have that.


Bush's Worst Midnight Regulation Yet
This latest assault is on clean water and it may be Bush's worst one yet.
Post by Tara Lohan. December 3, 2008.
Obama Backs Off Promise to Pass Windfall Profits Tax on Big Oil
Between this move and the move to wait to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, it looks like Obama is breaking some promises.
Post by David Sirota. December 3, 2008.
Blackwater Plans New Mission: Fighting Pirates
The private security firm Blackwater is planning to offer a new service to make money: protection from the pirates off the coast of East Africa.
Post by Faiz Shakir. December 3, 2008.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The coming crisis at the Department of Justice
Posted by: Rune on Apr 9, 2008 10:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Given that the DOJ has been carefully politicized and corrupted from top to bottom by purging fair minded prosecutors and administrators and replacing them with "loyal Bushies," these deferred prosecutions may actually be better than what would come of litigation. For the rest of the year, the prospects of getting any justice out of the Department of Justice are about on par with the odds of getting a high level of service out of the Internal Revenue Service. It is a lost cause for now.

But what happens when a new administration takes over? Suppose the next president actually wants to the DoJ to do its job (hey, I can dream!). What do you do with all those staff positions that are now held by those who gained position by proving their commitment to the partisan causes of the Bush administration? If they are all purged, who will be left to train and coordinate the vast team of replacements? If they are not purged, how can trust, morale, and some sense of impartial prosecution of the law ever be restored?

This is a major problem that none of the presidential candidates or news media outlets seem to have on their radar. It deserves attention.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Blame On Both Sides Of The Aisle
Posted by: NoPCZone on Apr 9, 2008 10:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is why cabinet officers are subject to confirmation hearings. The Democrats could have dug in and held up Bush's nominees even under the Repugnican Congress if they wanted to. Further, they could have asked the kind of pointed and unambiguous questions that would have made it easy to vote not to confirm. This is why we send these people to Washington, D.C.

I am so tired of the 'my dear friend and distinguished colleague', clubby, god 'ol boy BS that goes on up in both houses of Congress. Representatives and Senators are paid by us to look after these things and instead join the club, play the game and triangulate their way into a career in Washington. It's not supposed to be this way and this is the result.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think this document might have something to say about this situation
Posted by: wolfgangmo75 on Apr 9, 2008 10:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.friendsacrossamerica.com/declaration.html

Thanks you for your words Mr. Jefferson.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

its funny that the Article mentions Arthur Andersen
Posted by: EncinoM on Apr 9, 2008 11:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Arthur QAnderson is an example of thethe exact opposite. Arthur Anderson recieved the equalent of a death sentence from a DOJ to eager to prosecute anybody fro the Enron scandel. Only it turns out that after the trial and loss of thousands of jobs(bith directly and indirectly from the death of Anderson) that the DOJ was wrong and Anderson was innocent of what it was accussed of.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» innocent because of a technicality Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» not overly-aggressive Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
Interesting change of view on crime deterrance!
Posted by: jophylj on Apr 9, 2008 1:45 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In justifying the Bush administration's shift to the "slap-on-the-wrist" approach of deferred prosecution plus a fine, Ashforth notes that a criminal conviction "...can be a death sentence for a company." Funny - isn't he one of the crowd that cheers for death sentences in criminal trials because of their (alleged) deterrent power? Wouldn't one or two such "corporate deaths" go a long way toward deterring corporate misdeeds?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Otto
Posted by: otto on Apr 10, 2008 10:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Things have certainly gotten much worse, especially in these years of Bu--Sh--...but the power of corporations over people has been around for ages. About 30 years ago in Detroit I went to a zoning hearing with about 50 neighborhood residents to get a small corporation to tear down their old condemned building. A lawyer stood up and asked for more time to work on the case. They were given 2 more weeks; this time only about 20 of us showed up. It happened again...and again, about 6 times until I was the only one there to protest. They can hire a lawyer to come down, while a neighborhood has to mobilize troops over and over again. Pretty unfair!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Otto
Posted by: otto on Apr 10, 2008 10:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Things have certainly gotten much worse, especially in these years of Bu--Sh--...but the power of corporations over people has been around for ages. About 30 years ago in Detroit I went to a zoning hearing with about 50 neighborhood residents to get a small corporation to tear down their old condemned building. A lawyer stood up and asked for more time to work on the case. They were given 2 more weeks; this time only about 20 of us showed up. It happened again...and again, about 6 times until I was the only one there to protest. They can hire a lawyer to come down, while a neighborhood has to mobilize troops over and over again. Pretty unfair!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Screw all this blather.
Posted by: thekidde on Apr 10, 2008 10:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I need to get my hands on some C-4.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Prosecute at the local level.
Posted by: riotoustanpdx on Apr 10, 2008 11:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Felonies, like murder and embezzlement, are best prosecuted at the local level.

Where does the crime take place?

Corporations have a home office, and crimes are often committed there, or in an identifiable place.

Federal prosecution is often delayed, or nonexistent due to "lack of evidence" and other excuses that stem from lack of will and lack of adequate funding.

Stringent, no-tolerance local laws can be used to deter practices outside the law. Who would want Monsanto within its legal district anyway? This is an enterprise originating within the era of the German National Socialists, the Nazis, and undoubtedly has been populated with ex-Nazis imported from Germany during the migration of 10-12,000 Nazis into the U.S. during the post-war years. Monsanto's obvious agenda: control the world's food supply.

Only if local and state governing bodies establish no-tolerance rules, and enforce them, will this situation of corporate crime diminish.

The essence of success is local self-reliance.

These are the words of Thomas A. Nagy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Corporate deals replacing trials
Posted by: nightgaunt on Apr 10, 2008 3:48 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Title of a recent article by New York Times reporter Erik Lichtblau where our gov't has deferred more than 50 firms so far.
Just like binding arbitration has replaced the constitutional redress of grevinces so has this. Coming from the Justice(sic) dept. from small boutiques to immense corporations have been spared legal proceedings and have instead over the last three years and instead pay small fines. Fascism at work I'd say. Working its tendrils deeper into our body politic.
DPA's as they are called are considered "get-out-of-jail-free" cards. The wrong message? Only to those of us who are still under the delusion we are living in a constitutional republic. We are not.
The defenders of DPA's consider it a "crucial role in allowing the gov't to secure the cooperation of the company while avoiding the time,expense and uncertainty of a trial."
Need I say more? Oh and asbesdos isn't dangerous either. Dream on.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]