I see now there is a lot of confusion as to what makes an action criminal. Here's a breakdown:
If the company refused to act, despite knowledge it should act, to prevent injury to person or property, and then that inaction brought the kind of mishap they knew could happen, then they are criminally negligent. So, my previous example could be more clear: "We need to save money, let's cut the toxic-waste-plug-checker budget, despite this very serious risk that doing so will leave leaks unnoticed."
Now, if the company refused to act and had no knowledge it should act to prevent injury, and then something bad happens, it's just an accident and might bring a civil case but not a criminal one.
This all hinges on the concept of mens raea, the "guilty mind." This idea is fundamental to a lot of corporate/mafia strategy whereby the companies intentionally refuse to accept information about their own actions so that such knowledge doesn't implicate them as criminally liable. If Boss gives Goon a car and tells him to drive it into a lake, he isn't criminally liable for murder if he didn't know there was a living person in the trunk beforehand.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea]
Not doing things you know you should, like checking that you didn't leave the toxic waste on, is called negligence. If that negligence was intentional, e.g. "We need to save money, let's cut the toxic-waste-plug-checker budget.", then that intent was evil and the case is certainly criminal.
Regardless, they cannot be trusted to store these chemicals, just as a drunk cannot be trusted to operate a backhoe. If their operation was smaller this would be debatable, but when you store enough of this stuff to fill a pond you have more stringent responsibilities like researching safer storage methods (one plug, really?! between the ground and poison?), and employing competent minds.
If Exxon doesn't like these standards they can find another planet to poison, because their actions deeply effect all of us on a level that might someday, far in the future, confuse historians as to whether this was an accident or an offensive.
Slashdot Mirror
Grounds for a class-action?
I see now there is a lot of confusion as to what makes an action criminal. Here's a breakdown: If the company refused to act, despite knowledge it should act, to prevent injury to person or property, and then that inaction brought the kind of mishap they knew could happen, then they are criminally negligent. So, my previous example could be more clear: "We need to save money, let's cut the toxic-waste-plug-checker budget, despite this very serious risk that doing so will leave leaks unnoticed." Now, if the company refused to act and had no knowledge it should act to prevent injury, and then something bad happens, it's just an accident and might bring a civil case but not a criminal one. This all hinges on the concept of mens raea, the "guilty mind." This idea is fundamental to a lot of corporate/mafia strategy whereby the companies intentionally refuse to accept information about their own actions so that such knowledge doesn't implicate them as criminally liable. If Boss gives Goon a car and tells him to drive it into a lake, he isn't criminally liable for murder if he didn't know there was a living person in the trunk beforehand. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea]
Not doing things you know you should, like checking that you didn't leave the toxic waste on, is called negligence. If that negligence was intentional, e.g. "We need to save money, let's cut the toxic-waste-plug-checker budget.", then that intent was evil and the case is certainly criminal. Regardless, they cannot be trusted to store these chemicals, just as a drunk cannot be trusted to operate a backhoe. If their operation was smaller this would be debatable, but when you store enough of this stuff to fill a pond you have more stringent responsibilities like researching safer storage methods (one plug, really?! between the ground and poison?), and employing competent minds. If Exxon doesn't like these standards they can find another planet to poison, because their actions deeply effect all of us on a level that might someday, far in the future, confuse historians as to whether this was an accident or an offensive.