Venting about Arthur Andersen

I have a thought about the unanimous reversal in Arthur Andersen. Andersen is finished as an entity.  Thousands of people are out of work, the auditing industry has been damaged.  What are the consequences for the people at DOJ who made the relevant decisions to put an entire company out of business because of an at least arguably honest mistake (the issue regarding the jury instructions) about its document retention policy?

Well, of course they’re not criminally or civilly liable for an honest mistake, no matter how egregious.  We don't do such things to people. But surely the relevant decision-makers should pay some sort of a career consequence for their actions.

Now, you might say, won’t this deter future prosecutors from risky but potentially valuable prosecutions?  Oh, so now we’re talking about over-deterrence, are we?  As Joan Rivers would say, let’s talk.  What about the misincentives zealous prosecutions create for business people?

You might respond, this is different – business people get paid for taking risks.  Government agents don’t.  But what about the revolving doors at the borders between prosecutors’ offices, private practice and politics?  Rudy Giuliani can tell you about some of the rewards.

Anyway, something to consider.  Glad I got that off my chest.

Update:  Houston's Clear Thinkers, always an important source of information about Enron 's litigation aftermath, has more about the Andersen opinion, plus a reminder that there's something bigger at stake here than merely over-deterrence -- the rule of law.

Further update: More on AA here.