By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Boeing is poised to escape criminal prosecution in the 737 Max crashes case, a decision that has enraged victims’ families. The Department of Justice is reportedly considering a non-prosecution agreement, avoiding a guilty plea for the company despite the deaths of 346 people in two fatal crashes. This proposed agreement follows a previous rejected plea deal and ongoing concerns about Boeing’s safety practices. The families involved have strongly condemned the potential non-prosecution agreement as morally unacceptable. Boeing’s stock price has slightly decreased following the news.
Read the original article here
Families of the victims of the two Boeing 737 Max crashes are understandably appalled by the strong likelihood that Boeing will avoid criminal prosecution. The sense of injustice is palpable, fueled by the perception that the company’s immense size and influence have shielded it from accountability. The sheer scale of the tragedy, involving hundreds of lives lost, is overshadowed by a feeling that powerful forces are working to protect Boeing from facing the consequences of its actions.
This perception of impunity is deeply rooted in the belief that “he who has the gold makes the rules.” The suggestion is that Boeing’s enormous financial power and its status as a major military contractor afford it a level of protection unavailable to ordinary citizens. This fuels speculation that high-ranking government officials are either compromised by Boeing or actively working to prevent a prosecution that could destabilize the corporation. The idea of a “too big to fail” scenario, where the government prioritizes corporate survival over justice for victims’ families, hangs heavily in the air.
The argument that prosecuting Boeing could cause the company to collapse highlights the perceived imbalance of power. The implication is that the government prioritizes economic stability over accountability, effectively prioritizing the interests of shareholders over the lives lost. This is particularly galling to those who feel justice is only for the wealthy and powerful. The silence surrounding the crashes, especially those occurring outside the US, adds to the feeling of neglect and disregard for the victims and their families.
Concerns about the potential for future crashes contribute to the outrage. The argument that if a similar tragedy had occurred on US-based airlines, the outcome might have been different underscores the perception of bias. Past incidents involving Boeing, and the subsequent regulatory changes following those accidents, are cited as evidence of a double standard. The absence of similar forceful action in the wake of the 737 Max crashes deepens the sense of betrayal and lack of justice.
The perception that the current political climate hinders the pursuit of justice is also prominent. The comments touch upon the perception that those lacking financial clout and political influence have no real hope of obtaining justice, fueling a profound sense of cynicism. The suggestion that campaign contributions played a role in the outcome of the case further strengthens this belief. The absence of accountability feels particularly egregious, especially considering the immense loss suffered by the families.
The irony of accepting accountability in potentially mitigating legal action isn’t lost on many. The notion that proactively acknowledging wrongdoing and demonstrating a genuine commitment to rectifying problems could lessen the chances of lawsuits is contrasted with the perceived refusal of Boeing to take such a course. This highlights the belief that the company prioritized minimizing its financial exposure over taking moral responsibility.
The comments also touch upon Boeing’s previous deferred prosecution agreement, which was ultimately rejected due to a diversity and inclusion clause. This legal battle, seemingly overshadowed by the larger context of the 737 Max crashes, further complicates the narrative and reinforces the sense that legal and political maneuvering is protecting Boeing from full accountability. The perception that the outcome was influenced by political shifts, coupled with the vast wealth and influence of Boeing, deepens the feeling of powerlessness among the victims’ families.
The overall sentiment is one of profound disillusionment and anger. The families’ frustration is not simply about financial compensation; it’s about holding Boeing accountable for its actions and preventing similar tragedies from occurring in the future. The belief that powerful corporations operate above the law and that justice is often unattainable for ordinary citizens lies at the heart of their despair. The lack of prosecution leaves a lingering sense that the system has failed them and that their loved ones’ deaths have been essentially disregarded.