The house of Judiciary Committee has passed a regulation, which makes the laws imposed to inflict punishment on white collar crimes – lenient. The measure was pushed through so quickly that legal experts had little to no time to react and pass out a solid analysis of the situation – or the potential impact that this law implies in the long run. Various groups of people have voiced their opinions against the passing of the law, reason being their belief that this law will undermine the safety and health of the general public, eventually enabling business elites to continue inflicting pain on the world in the name of corporate collateral – turning a blind eye towards the wellbeing of the general public. Providing legal protection to these corporate injustices in terms of criminal violation would seemingly add to their strength and weaken the justice system, along with the belief in it. The justice system has successfully drawn positive attention towards the ever growing racial discriminations in the society and the powerful domination of the corporate elitists over them.
The apparent reason for passing the movement seemed to be the fact that there has been a level of difficulty in making clear the intention regarding conduct when it comes to holding high standard bank employees due and accountable for their legal discrepancies. Some argue that they are attempting to gain strength over sentence reform in order to successfully attain a mens rea reform. A law professor and scholar, Rena I. Steinzor, took a stand against this reform and was quoted as saying, “We don’t have a white-collar over-criminalization problem in this country. We have an under-criminalization problem,” which results in unnecessary deaths of evidently preventable causes throughout America, and that the Federal, and state, both kinds of prosecutors shy away from surfacing white-collar accuses and cases.
The bill passed for the said litigation is stated in confusing language, making the literal intention quite unclear to the concerned. As it requires advanced levels of prosecution knowledge and understanding, it shows the linguistic failure on the congressional committee’s part. Each and every aspect of federal criminal offense requires great levels of elaborate proof, which indirectly makes clear that there is no requirement for a particular state of mind by law, leaving no state of mind liable for lawful punishment.
One thing topically evident is that there is no state of mind requirement, but simultaneously, the federal court demands proof of given intent. Seeing the bill from this perspective makes it only a matter of how one uses it to their advantage. If white collar businesses were let go from the obligation of being liable of their criminal acts which affect various aspects of people’s lives, it would cause the kind of leverage one does not want to face if you are on the other side. Because this is exactly the kind of criminal activity that goes smoothly unnoticed, making it difficult to prove any such businesses guilty.
We’re sure you are intrigued to know more on the topic and whether the bill has caused some havoc – contact Premier Federal Criminal Defenders further information and assistance on the topic of white collar crimes and the course of their punishment.