Should we preserve corporate criminal liability?

[flashl]

Eighty percent of white collar criminal defense attorneys favor preserving corporate criminal liability, according to a survey released today by Corporate Crime Reporter.

But a majority of those who would preserve it would strictly limit its application.

The survey question – Should corporate criminal liability be eliminated? – was e-mailed to partners at the nation’s top 100 law firms who practice in the field of white collar criminal defense.

Of the 157 attorneys who responded, 126 (80 percent) said no, corporate criminal liability should not be eliminated – while only 31 (20 percent) said yes, they would eliminate it totally.

But of those who answered “no, it should not be eliminated” – the vast majority said that corporate criminal liability should be restricted or narrowed.

Typical case would be Purdue Pharma, Execs to Pay $634.5 Million Fine in OxyContin Case.

The plea agreement comes two days after the Stamford, Conn.-based company agreed to pay $19.5 million to 26 states and the District of Columbia to settle complaints that it encouraged physicians to overprescribe OxyContin.

"With its OxyContin, Purdue unleashed a highly abusable, addictive, and potentially dangerous drug on an unsuspecting and unknowing public," Brownlee said. "For these misrepresentations and crimes, Purdue and its executives have been brought to justice."

The Washington Post ran a story linking Purdue to the scandalized Justice Department who may have tried to intercede on Purdue’s behalf before the sentencing.

Purdue is fined $634.5 million after ravaging this country with its addictive drug for more than 12 year! How's that for criminal liability.