4 ms·

I'm not quite sure what specific problem is being solved. Part a sounds ok, but sounds more political than practical. I don't like requiring proof that a perso

I'm not quite sure what specific problem is being solved. Part a sounds ok, but sounds more political than practical. I don't like requiring proof that a person knowingly broke a regulation to criminally charge them. I can think of a few examples where that would have been good. But I think generally the US doesn't prosecute large scale violations enough. Deep Water Horizon, the Flint water crisis, the housing crisis, and the Volvo emissions scandal are all examples where almost no one went to jail. This seems like it would cripple environmental protection and make corporate legal defense much easier. It might have some benefit for small businesses. But it doesn't protect against heavy fines. And my current assumption is agencies are already not likely to settle with criminal charges.

peteretep 6y ago
This is the article (from a decade ago) that sticks in my mind: https://www.economist.com/leaders/2010/07/22/rough-justice https://www.economist.com/leaders/2010/07/22/rough-justice > America imprisons people for technical violations of immigration laws, environmental standards and arcane business rules. So many federal rules carry criminal penalties that experts struggle to count them. Many are incomprehensible. Few are ever repealed, though the Supreme Court recently pared back a law against depriving the public of “the intangible right of honest services”, which prosecutors loved because they could use it against almost anyone.