Some seven years after Lion Air flight 610 crashed into the Java Sea in Indonesia shortly after take off, Boeing has made a deal with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) that will mean that the aircraft manufacturer will not face criminal prosecution for the crash that killed 189 people.
In court documents filed last Friday, Boeing agreed to a settlement of investment and compensation totaling $1.1 billion, some $445 million of which is to be paid to the families of the victims of both the Lion Air crash and the Ethiopian Airlines crash that occurred just five months later.
Both planes were 737 Max aircraft manufactured by Boeing, and had been fitted with a new flight maneuvering system known as MCAS. The rationale was that the MCAS system would make flying safer by detecting if planes were about to stall and forcing the nose of the aircraft down. However, Boeing had not informed either pilots or airlines about the new system, nor its potentially deadly faults.
In both crashes, sensors mounted on the exterior of the aircraft malfunctioned, incorrectly identifying a stall and forcing the planes towards the ground, as pilots desperately tried to override the MCAS system that they had not been trained to operate.
The Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines crashes killed 346 people in total, and led to a series of “deals” with Boeing under which it paid various fines and compensation to victims’ families, including a $2.5 billion settlement in 2021.
However, after it was found that Boeing had misled the Federal Aviation Association (FAA) about the safety of its aircraft, possible criminal charges were discussed, with Boeing entering a plea deal in which it would plead guilty to federal fraud charges in 2024 – although the deal was subsequently rejected.
Now, the new deal has been announced that will allow Boeing to essentially pay its way out of any criminal sanctions, prompting the question of whether justice has been served.
What constitutes “justice” is highly subjective, depending on who is defining the term.
According to the Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School, “Justice is the ethical, philosophical idea that people are to be treated impartially, fairly, properly, and reasonably by the law and by arbiters of the law, that laws are to ensure that no harm befalls another, and that, where harm is alleged, a remedial action is taken – both the accuser and the accused receive a morally right consequence merited by their actions.”
But what is a “morally right consequence” – either in this case or in others? Morality is, after all, also subjective, and what is morally right is not always legally right (and vice versa).
In the Boeing case, one could argue that the “morally right” consequence could or should be that senior Boeing executives face prison time for misleading the FAA about the safety of their aircraft, if it were proven that this did indeed occur.
This would not, however, necessarily be the “best” outcome for all concerned.
For one, it is difficult to prosecute a company criminally if the goal is a custodial sentence. Companies are recognized as legal entities, distinct from their owners, staff and members but, while they can face criminal charges, these usually result in fines or other financial penalties, as it is impossible to imprison a company.
It is possible to bring criminal charges against individuals in a company, although this is more difficult as it involves identifying who was responsible and charging them separately from the company as a whole.
As such, a case such as this would no longer be about prosecuting Boeing (the company) but about charging individual employees working for Boeing at the time of the crashes.
This then raises subsequent questions about who was responsible for the alleged crimes being prosecuted. Was it Boeing, which had company-wide policies that were in violation of the law, or was it individuals making personal decisions outside of company policy?
Not only is this complex in terms of the legalities, but there is also the question of whether it is in the best interests of the families to pursue any of this in court.
In many cases, families of victims will often say they want “justice,” although attending lengthy and emotionally taxing trials, often in another country and in which the outcome is not guaranteed, can serve to do nothing other than compound their distress.
There is also some stigma about victims or their families accepting financial compensation – as if this is a lesser moral form of justice than imprisonment. However, while a custodial sentence is meant to punish an offender, it can have a negligible direct impact on victims of a crime.
While Boeing employees being sent to prison may be satisfying morally and emotionally to the families, it does little for them in practical terms.
The saying that money doesn’t buy happiness is certainly true, but in some cases, a financial settlement that allows families to pay for heat, light, housing, education, insurance, therapy, and other essentials is more helpful practically than seeing someone sent to prison.
Trauma is still trauma, but dealing with trauma while you have financial means can provide some level of comfort and support.
In the Boeing case, it is likely that the DOJ chose to make a deal with the aircraft manufacturer with all of the above considerations in mind. It is also likely that many of the families of the victims will feel that they have been short-changed by the decision.
Furthermore, it is true that not everyone had $1.1 billion to buy themselves out of criminal charges and, if another smaller company had found itself in the same situation, it is possible that it would have faced the full force of the law.
Is this deal the best-case scenario for all involved, or another example of multinational corporations continuing to escape liability by throwing money at the problem?