Why the Kochs Really Embraced Criminal Justice Reform

[n2doc]

It looks like the Koch brothers have scammed us once again.

When news first came out that Charles and David Koch — the Koch brothers — were supporting criminal justice reform efforts in Congress, many of us thought, “Wow, they’re actually doing something good for once.”

And for good reason, too.

Criminal justice reform has, over the past few years, become one of the very few legitimately bipartisan issues in American politics, and given their public statements, it really looked like the Kochs were joining that bipartisan consensus for all the right reasons.

Here, for example, is Charles Koch on a recent episode of Morning Joe talking about why we need to reform drug laws.

Sounds pretty persuasive, right?

Boy were we naïve.

more

http://trofire.com/2015/11/29/koch-brothers-prison/

If the bill passes, white collar criminals could get away with breaking the law if they can simply say that they “didn’t know” they or their business and colleagues were breaking the law when committing the crime in question.

They can’t do this now — it’s that whole “ignorance of the law is no excuse” thing.

[1StrongBlackMan]

1. As much as I dislike the koch brothers and their politics ...

This article is sensationalized. The standard of proof of this Bill does say what the article says it says:

If the bill passes, white collar criminals could get away with breaking the law if they can simply say that they “didn’t know” they or their business and colleagues were breaking the law when committing the crime in question.

Here is what the Bill ACTUALLY says"

Ҥ 11. Default state of mind proof requirement in Federal criminal cases

“If no state of mind is required by law for a Federal criminal offense—

“(1) the state of mind the Government must prove is knowing; and

“(2) if the offense consists of conduct that a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would not know, or would not have reason to believe, was unlawful, the Government must prove that the defendant knew, or had reason to believe, the conduct was unlawful.

There is a big difference.

ETA: The article seems to suggest that Defendants would be able to say, "I didn't know my company was dumping raw sewage into water-ways and employing 7 year olds to do it!"

It doesn't.

[virtualobserver]

2. what would be an example of a Federal criminal offense where no state of mind is required by law ?

[1StrongBlackMan]

3. I adressed that on edit ...

An example would be: a company dumping raw sewage into water-ways and employing 7 year olds to do it. This Bill would allow no protection because of the "reasonable person" provision.

An example of where state of mind WOULD be required would be: Putting a product to market that turns out to be defective ... Ex. An crib with slats that, while meeting the federal code for width, loosen with pressure, to impermissible widths.

While this bill would protect companies from criminal prosecution, they still would be civilly liable.

[virtualobserver]

4. so, the current law holds individuals and companies liable even if they don't "know"?

[1StrongBlackMan]

5. Not to my experience ...

But this is not to say that the Koch brothers won't attempt to use the law in this manner. But I doubt ANY, but the most libertarian of Federal judges would go for it.