I'll be interested to hear how our pro-business Republican types justify this. You know, the ones that say eye-for-an-eye, or "some people just need killin'" every time a death penalty case comes down the pipe.
British Petroleum "resolves" criminal charges by paying $50 million.
So our scenarious are thus:
BP executives know that explosions are common, nay, likely, without a very simple and inexpensive device that ignites fumes in order to keep them from pooling and exploding with an accidental ignition source. They refuse to equip a plant with a terrible safety record with the inexpensive device, despite recommendations to do so that cite the explosion hazard and the ease with which it can be remedied. Then they run the plant 24/7 at the highest possible capacity. Several people die in the very type of explosion they were warned about.
As opposed to, say, this:
A man walks into a bar. He's got a duck in one hand, and a bomb in the other. He knows the bomb will detonate if he sets the timer. He sets the bomb and leaves, and kills several people.
Question: In which of these two instances should the person making the decision to create the hazardous condition be able to buy his way out of jail time?
But if you're a BP executive, you're lucky, because you get a free ride.
Lady Justice, I hope they at least gave you some lube first.
There Goes a Man
10 months ago