By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A U.S. judge is holding a hearing to determine whether to approve a deal between the Justice Department and Boeing, allowing the planemaker to avoid prosecution for a criminal fraud charge related to two fatal 737 Max crashes. Family members of the 346 victims are objecting to the agreement, which would release Boeing from oversight by an independent monitor, deeming it insufficient. The initial plea deal was rejected, and the new non-prosecution agreement includes additional financial compensation to victims’ families. Boeing maintains the executive branch has the sole authority to decide on prosecution and has asked the judge to dismiss the objections.
Read the original article here
Families of airplane crash victims get a chance to object to Boeing’s non-prosecution deal. This is a pivotal moment, as it allows those most affected by the tragedy to voice their concerns about the proposed agreement between the Justice Department and Boeing. The weight of their grief and the need for justice now have a platform to be heard. It’s a chance to challenge a deal that, on the surface, seems to let a major corporation avoid the full consequences of its actions following the devastating 737 Max crashes, which claimed the lives of 346 people.
The core of the issue is that Boeing is seeking to avoid prosecution. This non-prosecution agreement, the latest iteration, is the result of negotiations, and now, the families of the victims are getting their say. The fact that this agreement allows Boeing to potentially evade criminal charges is infuriating, especially given the details that have emerged, including reports that company executives knew of safety issues.
Initially, the plea deal had already been agreed to. However, a judge intervened, rejecting the original agreement because of a provision related to the selection of an independent monitor. This hiccup, although seemingly minor, highlights the complex legal process and the scrutiny this case is under. Interestingly, the deal also saw changes during the transition between presidential administrations, which could point to the sensitive political nature of the situation.
The core concern is the idea that corporate entities can be treated differently, or even be seen as somehow separate from the individuals that lead them. The question of responsibility and accountability becomes critical. This whole situation brings to mind the documentary “Downfall: The Case Against Boeing.” It’s hard to watch and not feel a deep sense of anger at those in charge. There’s a strong feeling of injustice when it appears that those who made decisions that led to the deaths of so many people can simply walk away without facing severe consequences.
The families are right to demand justice. They lost loved ones because of negligence and potentially intentional disregard for safety regulations. The non-prosecution agreement seems to let Boeing off the hook and does not provide the justice the families deserve. Backroom deals that allow corporations to escape accountability are unacceptable, and it is hoped that their voices will be heard.
There’s a powerful sentiment that the people responsible for the crashes should be held accountable, potentially through criminal charges like manslaughter, especially if safety issues were known and ignored. In fact, there is an idea that financial penalties alone are not enough. Instead, the thought is that the people at Boeing should face personal consequences for their actions. A company culture of prioritizing profit over safety must be changed.
The focus often falls on the CEO and other high-level executives. There’s an argument that the compensation they receive, far exceeding the median wage of their employees, must be accompanied by the responsibility for their decisions. If the executives’ actions led to the death of hundreds, they should bear a heavy burden of accountability.
It is acknowledged, however, that the size and complexity of a corporation, like Boeing, make it difficult for any single person to be fully aware of everything that’s going on. This highlights the challenge of balancing individual accountability with the realities of how large organizations operate. There must be a balance between holding decision-makers accountable and understanding the inherent complexities of running a huge company. It all starts with the culture within Boeing, and the current culture is a problem.
It is recognized that changing a culture, or holding people accountable, is a hard task. There are many people that believe that real change comes when the leaders are sent to prison. The leaders, and the executives, were the ones in charge and they need to be held responsible. The decisions, the actions, and the lack of action are to blame.
The cases of whistleblowers, like Joshua Dean and John Barnett, who were silenced for speaking out, are a stark reminder of the obstacles to accountability. Holding individuals accountable, and potentially making decisions difficult, may have long-term benefits. It’s a difficult situation, but a necessary one.
Ultimately, the families of the victims deserve justice. They need to be able to object to the current non-prosecution agreement, and it’s a chance to challenge the arrangement and force the company to be held accountable for the deaths that it is responsible for.