"Sleeping within my orchard, thy uncle, my brother, stole with juice of cursed hebenon and did pour ..." These lines from Shakes-peare's Hamlet recounting the poisonous murder of a brother by a brother come to mind when considering the recent indictments in the Kaoping River (高屏溪) toxic dumping case.
The Kaohsiung District Prosecutors Office has filed indictments against 22 defendants in that incident. The charges include attempted murder and the named defendants include the highest ranking officials in the companies involved in the incident as well as the actual sub-contractors who carried out the dumping.
The incident does warrant such swift and decisive action on the part of the district prosecutors. More than 100 tonnes of toxic solvent dumped into the river that supplies most of Kaohsiung City's drinking water is certainly more than adequate grounds for such an indictment and for attempted murder charges.
Criminal charges in such instances are a very important and much needed aspect to the protection of Taiwan's environment and the Taiwanese public. The attempted murder charges may seem like prosecutorial "overcharging" on the face of it. But such a charge is appropriate in this case using the idea of "reckless disregard."
Just prior to the media announcement I discussed the matter with a prosecutor assigned to the Ministry of Justice. His question to me was what basis would a prosecutor use in California for filing attempted murder charges in a toxic dumping case. My reply was that such actions amounted to a reckless disregard for life and that that was the basis that would be used in the US.
I think we can all agree that dumping poison into a city's water supply does constitute a "reckless disregard" for the life and safety of others. Simply put, the defendants don't have to "intend" to kill anyone, they simply have to not give a damn who does or does not die.
Cases such as the Kaoping toxic dumping fall into the category of "environmental justice." Environmental justice is an important part of any nationwide prosecutors' office. Such cases are being given more and more prosecutorial resources in the US.
The January and February edition of the US Attorneys Bulletin was entirely devoted to federal prosecution issues connected with the environment. Federal prosecutors have had a number of major convictions in the last few years in cases that are similar to the Kaoping case. Criminal prosecutions in such cases play a critical role in protecting the environment and the citizens of any nation.
Such prosecutions, as Chief Prosecutor Steve Solow of the US Attorneys' Environmental Crimes Section points out: "1. Punish egregious violators and assure local communities that the government is protecting the health of citizens and protecting natural resources; 2. Deter future violators, especially individuals; and 3. Inform the regulated community that Federal enforcement sets a uniform standard for compliance; that no matter where a business operates in the US, it must comply with federal environmental laws."
Hopefully the same set of goals can be achieved in Taiwan through the prosecution of cases such as the Kaoping case. Deterrence does work. A strong, aggressive environmental crime program does lead to industry compliance and a better environment. In prosecuting such crimes, we must take a lesson from Hamlet; we must act, we must act with resolve and we must see our actions to their conclusion.
RSS