Nutty justice

GM penalty is peanuts next to food case outcome

The fine assessed General Motors (GM) for hiding killer defects looks like peanuts next to a penalty just meted out to a food company executive. The US carmaker will pay $900 million to settle charges over faulty ignition switches. The former owner of the Peanut Corp of America was sentenced this week to 28 years in prison for covering up a salmonella outbreak that led to nine deaths. The cases aren't different enough to justify the punishment discrepancies.

Evidence presented against GM was damning. An internal report found that the $47-billion company knew of flaws in the switch more than a decade ago, but didn't launch a recall until last year. Meanwhile, more than 120 people have died as a result of the problem.

Criminal misconduct is often tough to prove, however. Matters of intent and reasonable doubt can derail even the strongest cases. That's especially true when sophisticated corporate suspects say they were just following the advice of lawyers, accountants and other experts. And GM was savvy enough to cooperate with the government, leading to a deferred prosecution agreement and a corporate fine even lower than the $1.2 billion Toyota paid last year for defects that led to fewer deaths.

Peanut mogul Stewart Parnell's fingerprints, on the other hand, were all over his company's cover-up. He and his brother created fake certificates attesting to the purity of their goobers, according to prosecutors. Their conspiracy led to one of the largest food recalls in US history. They also argued until the end that they didn't know the products were unsafe.

Measured in the cold numbers of mortality, the peanut producer's wrongdoing certainly seems no worse than GM's. Both companies delayed for years recalling products that employees knew were deadly. Yet the 61-year-old Parnell received what could amount to a life sentence and lost his firm to liquidation. No one, including boss Mary Barra, at the carmaker has been charged.

Comparing any two cases is difficult, and it may be impossible to measure the effect of GM's deep pockets, iconic name and army of attorneys. It is, however, safe to say that the company cut a favourable deal. The price of looking at the two outcomes side by side may be a loss of faith in the fairness of the US justice system.