4 ms·
Should add "Repeated" to the title. They had already gotten in trouble in the past for dumping in the ocean, and continued to do it...
by legohead 7y ago
Should add "Repeated" to the title. They had already gotten in trouble in the past for dumping in the ocean, and continued to do it...
- bluetidepro 7y agoSadly that's what happens when the "penalty" is a laughable fine in their big picture.
- pbhjpbhj 7y agoYes, but surely a repeated offense demonstrates criminal responsibility (or negligence at least) on behalf of the C-suite ... which they could counter by demonstrating exactly what they had personally done to ensure preventative changes were in place (like inspected waste in person; checked training had been carried out, in person; made sure informational posters were in place onboard vessels, in person).
- justaguyhere 7y agoDon't judges give heavy punishment for third strike, to individuals? Why isn't this applicable to companies (or is it)? In the case of environmental crimes like this, the every time the fine should be 10X the previous one, considering our planet is already fucked with climate change.
- craftyguy 7y ago>Why isn't this applicable to companies (or is it)? Because companies != people, except in the cases where it is convenient for politicians.
- paxys 7y agoAnd they will do it again, as long as they can keep getting away with it with token fines.