Today's Wall Street Journal has an article about how the concept of
mens rea (Latin for a "guilty mind") has been changing as the criminal
code has expanded.  Most of the article provides examples of how new
laws have changed the legal landscape and, as such, may not be of
interest to most of you.  Near the end of the piece there is an
interesting antidote regarding the Sabanes-Oxley Act which many of us
are familiar with.

<snip>
 An incident from 2002 illustrates the sometimes messy process of
drafting legislation. That year, Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act, which set new punishments for white-collar crime following the
scandals at Enron, WorldCom and other companies. Several legal experts
were about to testify on key provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley before a
Senate subcommittee when the chairman called a break in the meeting.
The reason: The senators needed to vote on the very provisions the
panelists were there to discuss.  The hearing resumed two hours later,
after the provisions were approved 97-0. The witnesses went on to
testify about the dangers of weakening criminal-intent standards, as
Sarbanes-Oxley did.

Among other things, the new law made it easier for prosecutors to
bring obstruction-of-justice cases related to destruction of evidence.
Under earlier law, prosecutors had to show the defendant's destruction
of evidence was impeding an active investigation. Sarbanes-Oxley
broadened that, prohibiting the destruction of material that might be
part of any future investigation.
<snip>

http://on.wsj.com/obm951

Bruce White, CRM, PMP
Newtown Square, PA
e-mail: [log in to unmask]

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]