What more do YOU want
It sounds like you want a 'death sentence' for littering. (I know this is not what is happening... just using it as an analogy)...
Not for littering...for murder and for polluting the GOM and destroying livelihoods.
I got curious about whether the actions that BP allegedly took to try to rush the drilling could be criminal. Many here have argued that we need to let due process work. I'm fine with that but we can still
Emeritus can correctly if I am wrong but based on what I have found, "criminally negligent homicide" requires only that there be death that results from a foreseable outcome following an act of criminal negligence. "Cause" is not needed. Criminal negligence only requires that one exposes another to risk and does not require actually recognizing the risk. A higher state of mens rea, recklessness, occurs when the risk is recognized yet disregarded.
I think it could be credibly debated whether BP execs recognized the risk or not. But the risk clearly existed. The fact that BOP's exist is clear evidence that blow outs occur. So I don't see how BP and many execs and supervisors on the rig did not exhibit criminal negligence even if they were not reckless. This is based on admitted facts that have not been disputed. Remember, failure to recognize a foreseeable risk is negligence. And these are professionals so they would be judged based on their professional knowledge and experience. The question is not whether a blowout and explosion was likely. The question is whether there was a risk of it that should have been foreseen.
So, what we seem to have is criminally negligent homicide. The question becomes how we punish it (if they are convicted in criminal court of course). The death penalty may be off the table but life without parole probably should not be. And BP as a corporation is a repeat felon. They have previously been convicted for similar crimes. In most states this precludes any leniency.
What is "life without parole" for a corporation? I'd argue that it means seizing all assets and prohibiting them or any successor from ever doing business in or for the US.
Bankruptcy likely would not protect them either. And it turns out there are bilateral agreements for cooperation in bankruptcy cases between the UK and US. So, for the UK to protect BP would require violating treaties. It clearly could happen but it would not be as simple as thumbing their nose at the USG. US claimants would have standing in UK courts if their is a US bankruptcy they are trying to avoid.
Based on BP's recent actions. I am sure they have figured out for themselves that they are totally screwed legally. Their only chance for survival is to appeal to emotion.