[Mb-civic] DEFENDING THE DOUBLE STANDARD

[ean at sbcglobal.net]

DEFENDING THE DOUBLE STANDARD
By Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman

A corporation commits a crime.

A federal prosecutor has the goods on the company.

But the prosecutor chooses not to convict the corporation.

Instead, the prosecutor befriends the attorney for the corporation.

And together they turn on the individual executives.

This is the new pattern of corporate crime prosecutions.

Increasingly, corporations are getting a free pass from prosecutors who
don't want to do anything to harm the corporate entity.

In fact, today it is rare that a major corporation will be convicted of a
crime that it has committed.

Instead, the corporation will toss overboard a number of executives -- all
in an effort to save the corporation from criminal sanction.

When asked why corporations shouldn't be convicted of crimes they
clearly committed, corporate defense attorneys come up with the same
explanations.

Corporations are legal fictions.

Better to convict the individuals at the helm of the corporation and
save the corporation.

Mary Jo White, former U.S. Attorney in Manhattan and currently partner at
Debevoise Plimpton, put it this way recently:

"There is no question that the primary focus of prosecutors is and
remains guilty individuals. The entity is a corporate fiction. But it is
obviously an important entity to those who work in it and those who invest
in it. Prosecutors should think -- why is it that I need to do anything to
this company? Why is this such a rare case of wrongdoing that it demands
something on the criminal side?"

Last month, Corporate Crime Reporter released a report that profiled 34
cases where prosecutors -- confronted with solid evidence of corporate
criminal wrongdoing -- have chosen instead to enter into a non-prosecution
agreement or a deferred prosecution agreement with the corporation.

Seventeen of the 34 cases were settled with non-prosecution agreements.

Under a non-prosecution agreement, the prosecutor agrees not to
criminally prosecute the corporation in exchange for fines, cooperation,
monitors and changes in the corporate structure.

The other 17 cases were settled with deferred prosecution agreements.

Under a deferred prosecution agreement, the prosecutor charges the
corporation with a crime, but agrees to drop the charges if the
corporation fulfills its promises to the prosecutor.

The report finds that prosecutors have entered into twice as many
non-prosecution and deferred prosecution agreements with major U.S.
corporations in the last four years (23 agreements between 2002 to 2005)
as they did in the previous 10 years (11 agreements between 1992 to 2001).

And it raises the question -- are these companies too big to indict, too
big to convict?

Increasingly, non-prosecution and deferred prosecution agreements have
become the settlements of choice for prosecutors and corporate defense
attorneys.

We believe that there is a good chance that the rise of these agreements
has undermined the general deterrent and adverse publicity impact that
results from corporate crime prosecutions and convictions.

Being a corporate criminal carries the heavy weight of adverse publicity
-- and the potential of being barred from doing business with federal,
state and local governments.

Also, individual citizens might shy away from doing business with
convicted companies.

And it could very well be that the rise of these deferred and
non-prosecution agreement deals represents a victory for the forces of big
business that for decades have been seeking to weaken or eliminate
corporate criminal liability.

The antipathy of business and business lawyers toward corporate criminal
liability is deep and far reaching.

Many advocates for big business openly advocate for the elimination of
corporate criminal liability.

One such person is Jeffrey Parker, a Professor of Law at George Mason
University.

Parker argues that corporate crime simply does not exist and cannot exist.

"Crime exists only in the mind of an individual," Parker said. "Since a
corporation has no mind, it can commit no crime."

Parker argues that a since a corporation is not a living, breathing
human being, it should not be treated as a living, breathing human being
in the criminal law arena.

But if a corporation is not a person for purposes of the criminal law,
then why should it be is a person for the purposes of constitutional law
-- where it is considered a person and is granted protections, including
First Amendment guarantees of political speech and commercial speech,
Fourth Amendment safeguards against unreasonable searches, Fifth 
Amendment
double jeopardy and liberty rights, and Sixth and Seventh Amendment rights
to trial by jury?

A double standard is being set -- if not by law, then by prosecutorial
discretion.

On the one hand, if you are a living, breathing human being who commits a
crime, you will be prosecuted, convicted and sent to prison.

On the other, a large corporation will be deemed too big to convict and
granted a deferred or non-prosecution agreement.

And it is a double standard that is openly defended by corporate crime
defense attorneys.

Last year, we asked Joseph Savage, a criminal defense attorney at
Goodwin Procter in Boston about the double standard.

"Is there a double standard?" he asked. "Absolutely. And there should be.
There can be no crime of a corporation without an individual act. It can
never be the other way around -- a corporate crime without individuals
acting. To me, there is a double standard. There ought to be a double
standard."


Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate Crime
Reporter, <http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com>. Robert Weissman is
editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Multinational Monitor,
<http://www.multinationalmonitor.org>. Mokhiber and Weissman are
co-authors of On the Rampage: Corporate Predators and the Destruction of
Democracy (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press).

(c) Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman

This article is posted at:
<http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/corp-focus/2006/000229.html>

_______________________________________________

Focus on the Corporation is a weekly column written by Russell Mokhiber
and Robert Weissman. Please feel free to forward the column to friends or
repost the column on other lists. If you would like to post the column on
a web site or publish it in print format, we ask that you first contact us
(russell at corporatecrimereporter.com or rob at essential.org).

Focus on the Corporation is distributed to individuals on the listserve
corp-focus at lists.essential.org. To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your
address to corp-focus, go to:
<http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/corp-focus> or send an e-mail
message to corp-focus-admin at lists.essential.org with your request.

Focus on the Corporation columns are posted at
<http://www.corporatepredators.org>.

Postings on corp-focus are limited to the columns. If you would like to
comment on the columns, send a message to russell at nationalpress.com or
rob at essential.org.

-- 
You are currently on Mha Atma's Earth Action Network email list, 
option D (up to 3 emails/day).  To be removed, or to switch options 
(option A - 1x/week, option B - 3/wk, option C - up to 1x/day, option D - 
up to 3x/day) please reply and let us know!  If someone forwarded you 
this email and you want to be on our list, send an email to 
ean at sbcglobal.net and tell us which option you'd like.


"A war of aggression is the supreme international crime." -- Robert Jackson,
 former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice and Nuremberg prosecutor

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20060202/dda02693/attachment.htm