Let’s take a trip back down memory lane prior to 2008 when the economic recession crippled the global. Banks were lending money, the rich were getting richer and everything was rosy. According to { The New York Times 2011} the economic recession could have been prevented if regulations were followed up correctly, and it notes that a Commission has concluded that some of the main bosses of the largest corporations in the world simply couldn’t have not seen the devastating recession on the horizon. The dodgy risk taking on Wall Street as well as the continuous selling of toxic mortgages to people was all labelled as preventable. Interestingly the report blames the Bush administration for failing to act on the crisis, and even points out that that at the time senior bosses at FedEx were openly encouraging more deregulation. The report highlights that the dodgy loans which had been openly sold for many years, and the breaking of every regulatory rule, was allowed to continue by numerous administrations. At the time the market was safe and the US had one of the largest economies in the world, why on earth would the government question the process if everything was going well? There can be no doubt that there was an element of state facilitated crime which led to the economic recession, but crucially there is also questions surrounding the state’s role in the aftermath of the crisis, with the follow up inquiry’s failing to bring anyone to justice for the corporate crimes committed, with little done it is only a matter of time before it happens again.
The authorities have often been blamed for failing to get to grips with the crisis but as {Prosser 1997} remarks there has been an effort to regulate the actions of big corporations and try to bring them into line. There came a period when regulatory forms promoted market activity, resulting in the freeing of markets in the privatisation of energy, water, telecommunications and rail. Then the government brought into effect a sweeping set of reforms, which was aimed at controlling and maintaining the new markets. According to { Fooks 1999} as a result of the growing criticism towards the UK government and its response to environmental crime, the Environmental Agency was brought into existence, with the aim of a more effective response to crimes against the environment. Arguably one of the most important regulatory bodies introduced was to deal with banking fraud; the fraud office was a body which could bring anyone or any organisation before them no matter what size they may be. These regulatory reforms led to some confidence being restored in the state and its ability to deal with corporate crime, and to show to the wider public that they are not lining their own pockets.
There have been many great case studies over the last number of years which highlight state corporate crime and the devastating effect that it has. The one which I have chosen to look at is the use of herbicides in Vietnam, with the aim solely to improve visibility, to prevent an enemy ambush and finally to facilitate the building of an army base. The release of dangerous chemicals into the environment not only places the lives of humans in danger, but also destroys the environment. During operation Ranch Hand vehicles specially equipped sprayed 66.6 litres of deadly and poisonous herbicides over an estimated 3 million acre spread. The most extensively used herbicide was called Agent Orange, which also happened to be the most toxic. According to {Zumwalt 1990} this deadly toxic Agent Orange was linked to at least 28 diseases. According to the World Health Organisation over 3 million individuals have suffered as a result of this herbicidal warfare carried out by the United States. According to {White 2008} the full scale of the damage may still be unknown as it is incredibly hard to measure and has more than likely contaminated the food chain as a result of the animals eating the food in the contaminated zones. Linking it back to the question how is this an act of state corporate crime? In this case study state initiated corporate crime is the source of the crime, with the government approaching and involving a chemical company to work closely with them in order to produce the deadly toxic. According to {Sutherland 1950} whom looked into the reality of deviant corporations and why they participated, a mere 10 years later his reasoning very much makes sense. Firstly they would not be accused of any wrongdoing, as the order had come directly from the United States government, therefore any grievances could not be tracked back to the respected chemical company. Secondly it was very hard to find evidence which supported claims that the deadly toxic chemicals had been used in Vietnam. It was solely based on accusations from the US veterans, as well as this due to the fact there was no access to the use of modern technology which we have today, no such evidence could ever be documented. Finally the corporation behind the chemical would simply attempt to cover up the case by getting rid of the evidence, once again it was simply the veteran’s word against the companies, and no concrete evidence was ever submitted. There was widespread condemnation of the actions of the US government, with thousands signing a petition to stop the use of Herbicides in Vietnam, the government didn’t listen to the campaign.
According to { Benson & Simpson 2009} the lack of regulatory oversight and the fact that tactical herbicides were exempt from the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Pesticide Act, ensured that this act of deviance was allowed to continue without any repracuations from the legal authorities. As a result of this crime unsurprisingly no one has been brought to justice for the crime which has been committed, the use of tactical herbicide is classified as a war crime. The sheer indiscriminate nature of the crime is clearly seen in Vietnam with the resulting devastating effect on the wider population as a result of the exposure to the deadly toxins. It can be strongly argued that this case also involves state facilitated corporate crime, as the follow up investigation was slack and as noted the regulatory proceedings were not as stringent as they should have been. It was very much within the states interest that the regulatory proceedings were seemingly lackluster, as if they were up to scratch they could have ruined the entire operation. According to { Hobsbawm 1994} we have entered into a dangerous era in which barbarity and moral progress are no longer important, and that the sole aim of human existence is to make as much money as possible.