Is
There Still A Corporate Ulterior Motive Behind Criminal Justice Reform?
By Phil Mattera in the Dirt Diggers Digest
Is
it just a coincidence that Donald Trump has decided to embrace criminal justice
reform just at the time he is more likely to become a defendant himself?
He’s not the only party that may have mixed motives in supporting the legislation that is being hyped as an outstanding expression of bipartisanship.
He’s not the only party that may have mixed motives in supporting the legislation that is being hyped as an outstanding expression of bipartisanship.
One
of the prime movers behind the initiative has been Koch Industries, whose
owners Charles and David Koch are the epitome of partisanship.
Their role on this issue was initially puzzling, given that the Kochs were not known for supporting anything that was remotely progressive.
Their role on this issue was initially puzzling, given that the Kochs were not known for supporting anything that was remotely progressive.
Three
years ago, the full story began to emerge. The New York Times reported that
one part of the reform being pushed by the Kochs and other business interests
would require prosecutors to meet a more stringent standard in proving illicit
intent, or “mens rea.”
The Times stated that the Obama Justice Department was concerned that the change “would make it significantly harder to prosecute corporate polluters, producers of tainted food and other white-collar criminals.” PR Watch provided more detail on what the Kochs were up to.
The Times stated that the Obama Justice Department was concerned that the change “would make it significantly harder to prosecute corporate polluters, producers of tainted food and other white-collar criminals.” PR Watch provided more detail on what the Kochs were up to.
In
other words, what was made to look like a high-minded civic effort was also, at
least in part, a move by corporations to shield themselves from prosecution.
In the case of Koch Industries, the issue is far from a theoretical one. In Violation Tracker we document 275 cases in which the company has paid a total of $736 million for environmental, safety, employment and other offenses.
One of these was a criminal case: In 2001 one of its subsidiaries pled guilty and paid $20 million to resolve allegations that it covered up Clean Air Act violations at an oil refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas.
In the case of Koch Industries, the issue is far from a theoretical one. In Violation Tracker we document 275 cases in which the company has paid a total of $736 million for environmental, safety, employment and other offenses.
One of these was a criminal case: In 2001 one of its subsidiaries pled guilty and paid $20 million to resolve allegations that it covered up Clean Air Act violations at an oil refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas.
Mens
rea “reform” is not part of the current criminal justice package, but the issue
is far from dead. Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton just published an op-ed in USA
Today calling for it to be added to the bill. Since Cotton’s support
may be essential to passage, he may get his wish – and presumably the Kochs
would be happy with that outcome.
Cotton
is not the only one who has been beating this drum. Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch and
Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley have introduced mens rea legislation that
would apply not only to criminal actions but also to “regulatory offenses.”
During
the confirmation hearings on Brett Kavanaugh, Sen. Hatch brought up the
issue of mens rea. He and the nominee both spoke enthusiastically on the need
for “reform.” Here, as in much of the conservative discussion of the matter,
proponents like to give the impression their concern is primarily with the
rights of bank robbers and the like.
Yet
it seems clear that the real intended beneficiaries are corporations and their
executives supposedly being victimized by unjust regulations.
The
issues surrounding criminal justice reform are complicated, but one thing is
clear: it should not be used as a means of undermining the prosecution of
corporate crime and misconduct.