Quote:
Originally Posted by 77T
I don't believe anyone was charged with a crime. The litigation was for civil damages.
This DuPont issue is complicated. Chemistry itself is complicated when a breakthrough compound is discovered and then launched in its first-use application.
Does anyone recall the phrase “better things for better living through chemistry”?
In the depths of the 1930's Depression, DuPont's advertising slogan lauded its potential to solve virtually any human problem.
It's clear that without chemistry, the world would be a very different place.
What is not so clear is how unintended consequences bear on the succeeding generations of corporate leaders and any alleged intent to commit a crime.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
|
Well stated.
My point, people don’t go to jail if no crime was committed. Much of current environmental law arose from found problems. Companies were in compliance with the law at the time they created the problems. So, the executives aren’t going to be prosecuted for things that weren’t illegal at the time.
The morality of Dupont’s actions at the time is objectionable, and they paid a dollar price for dubious behavior judged in the modern environmental context, but our system of government doesn’t allow prosecution for dubious behavior alone.