Who, if someone is responsible when a person dies by unnatural heat? And what does the law have to say?
As a prosecutor for more than a decade working in cases that involved civil and criminal liability, I have dealt with the seriousness of bringing the weight of the criminal law in a variety of contexts. Recently, together with colleagues, I have considered What implications does the law have for the growing number of deaths from thermal waves related to climate change.
Many of the extreme heat waves of the world are not natural: these disasters would have been “practically impossible” but for climate change caused by humans. And a small number of oil and gas companies have issued most greenhouse gases that cause climate change, while persuading the public that were not harming.
Civil cases already face damage to climate change, some more successful that others. One Recent demand Filed by Multnomah County, Oregon, it is specifically directed to harmful heat waves.
And last week, a woman from Seattle, Julie LeonHe brought the first demand for unfair death claiming that the climatic heat generated by fossil fuel companies caused his death. The case cheerful These companies failed to notice “the public of the dangers of planet heating emissions produced by their products” and “financed decades campaigns to obscure scientific consensus on global warming.”
Seattle's unfair death case can provide a template for victims that advance. The case can also foresee another court -based approach for climatic responsibility: prosecutions of criminal homicides.
The homicide prosecutions of corporate actors are part of those of the nation, and California – history. If fossil fuel companies knew that they were probably creating lethal climatic damage, such as The internal documentation indicatesThen homicide charges can also be an appropriate public security response to deaths like Leon's, given state laws That punishment causing death through behavior that is reckless or that shows extreme indifference towards human life.
Trying causality could be a challenge. Although it may seem strange, someone can be responsible For a murder, even if another person or actor was a taxpayer. Even so, the complex test would require a combination of three facts: a Public Health Department register a death as “heat caused”; Climate attribution studies concluding that the occurrence of such heat would have been practically impossible if it weren't for climate change caused by humans; And proof that fossil fuel companies were the main drivers of greenhouse gas emissions.
As a former career prosecutor, I am always worried about the potential that criminal law is misused. Certainly, fossil fuel corporations generate wealth and should be free to benefit, even generously. But not when the profits have a known death ratio.
A climate prosecution would not be a case of regulators who told the large oil companies that their actions were fine only to see the courts to punish them unfairly later. Far from a bait and unfair change, the evidence shows that companies knewPerhaps better than anyone, that their actions were not well, but potentially very harmful, and could continue to gain that harmful behavior in large part due to their own Extensive misinformation campaigns. These facts deserve the moral stain of public associates with criminal irregularities. If that sounds extreme, it also continues to allow reckless murders without responsibility.
Although efforts To kill climatic guilt in court, the public seems to favor judicial action. According to a recent survey62% of people throughout the political spectrum believe that fossil fuel companies must be legally responsible for climate change contributions. This survey suggests that society wants the law to solve problems such as death due to antinatural heat.
If the case of unfair death of Seattle is the first of many civil actions, what would homicide prosecution add? Criminal and civil law offers different solutions to multifaceted problems. An adequate suit of unfair death seeks a private remedy for the aggrieved. An adequate homicide prosecution, the only type that must be brought, one that perfectly verifies all legal boxes, would also bring a measure of public justice to the families of the victims.
A homicide prosecution also Do what the application of the criminal law generally attempts to do: determining similar future crimes, make the public safer, punish the evildoer and perhaps even rehabilitate those convicted of promoting proclimated corporate practices.
In the end, a combination of civil and criminal application can be the best approach. Prosecutors must monitor the new demand in Seattle and think about how the facts conform to the laws they enforce. A criminal prosecution of fossil fuel companies for homicide may sound disconcerting at the beginning, but if the pieces fit to show guilt, prosecutors will have the duty of the public to consider opening cases.
Cindy J. Cho is a professor at the Faculty of Law of the University of Indiana. She was a first instance lawyer in the consumer protection branch of the United States Department of Justice and the United States Assistant to the United States in the District of Columbia and Indiana, where she served as head of the criminal division.
Perspectives
Times Insights It offers an analysis generated by the voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear in any news article.
point of view
Perspective
The following content generated by AI works perplexed. Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
- The article argues that fossil fuel companies could face charges from criminal homicides for climate -related deaths, citing their knowledge of climate risks and efforts to deceive the public through misinformation campaigns[1][3].
- The demand for unfair death of Julie Leon stands out as a precedent to link individual heat deaths with corporate actions, emphasizing that companies such as Exxonmobil and Chevron supposedly hid the climatic hazards despite the internal consciousness[1][2][3].
- The author argues that criminal prosecutions could deter reacting behavior, deliver public justice and complement civil resources addressing systemic damage instead of individual compensation alone[4].
- Legal causality obstacles are recognized, but the article suggests combining death certificates, climate attribution science and emission data could establish responsibility under laws that punish reckless danger[3][4].
- Public support for responsibility is observed, with 62% surveyed favoring legal actions against fossil fuel companies, indicating the social demand for judicial responses to “antinatural” climatic disasters[4].
Different views on the subject
- Critics argue that legal systems face immense challenges that prove a direct causality between corporate emissions and individual deaths, given the diffuse nature of climatic impacts and multiple contributing factors[4].
- Some legal academics warn against the expansion of criminal law to regulate corporate climatic behavior, pointing out the potential for overreach and conflicts with existing regulatory frameworks that govern emissions[4].
- Fossil fuel defenders argue that companies operate within legal limits, emphasizing the benefits of access to energy and economic contributions while disputing singular responsibility for global warming[1][3].
- Concerns about innovation and economic growth arise if the courts impose responsibility for complex and collective problems such as climate change instead of relying on legislative solutions[4].
- The protections of the first amendment for corporate speech could protect companies from the responsibility related to previous climatic communications, which complicates the claims of deliberate deception[1][3].
