- Dec 18, 2011
- 12,919
- 4,822
- 350
It worked for Hillary but, apparently, real people can't get away with it.
In this case, the people going to jail were not directly responsible for the screw up nor were they aware of the problem. But, since they were in charge and responsible for providing oversight to ensure that the law regarding safety measures were upheld, the father and son have to spend 3 months in jail.
Compare this to Hillary, who also was also in charge of upholding safety measures but made a conscious decision to break them. In that case, a supposed lack of intent was the only thing preventing charges from being pressed. And the consequences could have jeopardized the entire country. She is just too fucking stupid to know that, if you believe her.
So, lawyers in this latest case argued that it was unfair because the corporate officials had no intent to harm anyone. They had no idea that subordinates were not following the proper procedure. While inspections are necessary to ensure quality control, it's impossible to do that every day. So, the guys at the top are facing jail because lower level employees dropped the ball. Not like the officials set up an insufficient quality control division in their bathroom.
In the end, it's clear that the "lack of intent" defense only applies to a Clinton, no matter how serious the crime.
"The U.S. Supreme Court declined in May to hear the appeals of Austin "Jack" DeCoster and his son, Peter DeCoster, without comment. Both have been sentenced by U.S. District Judge Mark Bennett to serve three months in prison. The sentences jarred the food and drug manufacturing industry because it's rare that corporate officials are held personally responsible for an outbreak of foodborne illness.
Business groups, including the National Association of Manufacturers, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and the libertarian Cato Institute think tank filed friend-of-the-court briefs backing the DeCosters' appeal of their sentences. The groups argued that it is unfair to send corporate executives to prison for violations that they were either unaware of or that were committed by subordinates. The groups said it's highly unusual to attach a criminal penalty and prison time to executives when there is no proof of intention or knowledge of wrongdoing.
"This sanction will slow business growth and innovation," said Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute.
Bennett in his 68-page sentencing opinion filed in April 2015 concluded that prison time was necessary to deter officials from marketing unsafe food.
"Given the defendants' careless oversight and repeated violations of safety standards, there is an increased likelihood that these offenses, or offenses like these, could happen again," he wrote. "The punishment will also serve to effectively deter against the marketing of unsafe foods and widespread harm to public health by similarly situated corporate officials and other executives in the industry."
Egg executives in salmonella case must report to prison
In this case, the people going to jail were not directly responsible for the screw up nor were they aware of the problem. But, since they were in charge and responsible for providing oversight to ensure that the law regarding safety measures were upheld, the father and son have to spend 3 months in jail.
Compare this to Hillary, who also was also in charge of upholding safety measures but made a conscious decision to break them. In that case, a supposed lack of intent was the only thing preventing charges from being pressed. And the consequences could have jeopardized the entire country. She is just too fucking stupid to know that, if you believe her.
So, lawyers in this latest case argued that it was unfair because the corporate officials had no intent to harm anyone. They had no idea that subordinates were not following the proper procedure. While inspections are necessary to ensure quality control, it's impossible to do that every day. So, the guys at the top are facing jail because lower level employees dropped the ball. Not like the officials set up an insufficient quality control division in their bathroom.
In the end, it's clear that the "lack of intent" defense only applies to a Clinton, no matter how serious the crime.
"The U.S. Supreme Court declined in May to hear the appeals of Austin "Jack" DeCoster and his son, Peter DeCoster, without comment. Both have been sentenced by U.S. District Judge Mark Bennett to serve three months in prison. The sentences jarred the food and drug manufacturing industry because it's rare that corporate officials are held personally responsible for an outbreak of foodborne illness.
Business groups, including the National Association of Manufacturers, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and the libertarian Cato Institute think tank filed friend-of-the-court briefs backing the DeCosters' appeal of their sentences. The groups argued that it is unfair to send corporate executives to prison for violations that they were either unaware of or that were committed by subordinates. The groups said it's highly unusual to attach a criminal penalty and prison time to executives when there is no proof of intention or knowledge of wrongdoing.
"This sanction will slow business growth and innovation," said Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute.
Bennett in his 68-page sentencing opinion filed in April 2015 concluded that prison time was necessary to deter officials from marketing unsafe food.
"Given the defendants' careless oversight and repeated violations of safety standards, there is an increased likelihood that these offenses, or offenses like these, could happen again," he wrote. "The punishment will also serve to effectively deter against the marketing of unsafe foods and widespread harm to public health by similarly situated corporate officials and other executives in the industry."
Egg executives in salmonella case must report to prison