Many of the corporations responsible for nearly bringing down the global economy escaped prosecution because of a set of guidelines adopted by the Justice Department in summer 2008. The New York Times recently reported on the effect of this “softer approach” to white-collar crime. The guidelines were well-known to federal prosecutors but not to the public at large, and help explain “the dearth of criminal cases despite a raft of inquiries into the financial crisis”:

Though little noticed outside legal circles, the guidelines were welcomed by firms representing banks. The Justice Department’s directive, involving a process known as deferred prosecutions, signaled “an important step away from the more aggressive prosecutorial practices seen in some cases under their predecessors,” Sullivan & Cromwell, a prominent Wall Street law firm, told clients in a memo that September.

The guidelines left open a possibility other than guilty or not guilty, giving leniency often if companies investigated and reported their own wrongdoing. In return, the government could enter into agreements to delay or cancel the prosecution if the companies promised to change their behavior.

But this approach, critics maintain, runs the risk of letting companies off too easily.

“If you do not punish crimes, there’s really no reason they won’t happen again,” said Mary Ramirez, a professor at Washburn University School of Law and a former assistant United States attorney.

Although the rules were adopted under the Bush administration, Obama administration officials have made no move to rescind or modify them. Their decision to let big banks and corporations continue to “police themselves” is shocking, given the large role deregulation played in the financial crisis.

While “deferred prosecutions” were used before the financial crisis, they’ve become an official alternative for the DOJ and Securities and Exchange Commission at a time when many Americans believe the government shouldn’t be so quick to let companies off the hook for misdeeds that can affect millions of families.

The financial crisis cases brought by the S.E.C. have “rarely named executives as defendants,” and no corporate players have served jail time for their role in the risky behavior and outright fraud that brought the global economy to its knees.

One striking effect of this more lenient strategy is that government lawyers now frequently “outsource” investigations to the companies themselves. Companies that report back to the government are usually spared prosecution — as was the case with a home building firm that engaged in mortgage fraud.

The discrepancy between how federal prosecutors handle corporate crime compared to other kinds of crime is stark, and — we now know — embedded in DOJ rules themselves. The government doesn’t trust the rest of the population to police itself, but corporate executives are singled out for special treatment. That corporations are so frequently spared from prosecution in the wake of the recession is a reminder of the uncomfortably close relationship between government and industry that continues to this day.

After two embarrassing arrests of local citizens for videotaping police as they carried out official duties, the city of New Haven, Connecticut issued a policy preventing police officers from arresting bystanders who videotaped their actions.

When the state’s Democrats attempted to turn that policy into state law earlier this year, the proposal came under fire from state Republicans, who offered a host of excuses for why a law promoting transparency and openness in law enforcement was a bad idea. Senate Republicans then successfully watered down the bill before it came to a vote, where they were nearly unanimous in their opposition to it. The bill passed the state Senate on June 3 with only one Republican vote, but the state House of Representatives ran out of time before it could vote on the bill.

Less than a month later, an incident in New Haven proved why such efforts to promote transparency in the law enforcement process are so necessary.

On June 23, witnesses in a New Haven neighborhood caught two police officers on film as they brutally and repeatedly assaulted an African-American man in the middle of a neighborhood street. During the attack, one officer repeatedly kicked, punched, and stomped on the victim while the other officer pinned the victim to the ground. The video appears to contradict the official police report, which described the man as violently resisting, kicking, and punching the officers.

When the video became public, the New Haven Police Department announced that its internal affairs division was launching a department-wide probe into the incident.

Watch the attack:

In other states, both federal and state courts have upheld the right of citizens to videotape police officers as they carry out official duties. Many of those arrested for videotaping officers, meanwhile, have either seen their charges dropped or have been acquitted by criminal courts.

Fortunately, the person who videotaped last month’s brutal beating is protected by New Haven’s local policy, but that policy does nothing to protect witnesses to police brutality in other parts of the state. If Connecticut Republicans have their way, those witnesses will remain unprotected indefinitely.

Former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has become the latest known victim of extra-legal information gathering orchestrated by U.K. newspapers owned by NewsCorp Chairman Rupert Murdoch. The quickly developing scandal has moved far beyond the now-defunct News of the World, with the U.K’s Guardian reporting that journalists from across the News International newspaper group, owned by NewsCorp, “repeatedly targeted” the liberal Brown for more than 10 years while he served as Chancellor of the Exchequer and then Prime Minister.

Con-men and private investigators working for the papers, including the Sunday Times — the most reputable publication of the group — appear to have illegally gleaned banking, phone, and other records about Brown, including medical data on his infant son, the Guardian reports:

• Scotland Yard has discovered references to both Brown and his wife, Sarah, in paperwork seized from Glenn Mulcaire, the private investigator who specialised in phone hacking for the News of the World;

• Abbey National bank found evidence suggesting that a “blagger” acting for the Sunday Times on six occasions posed as Brown and gained details from his account;

• Brown’s London lawyers, Allen & Overy, were tricked into handing over details from his file by a conman working for the Sunday Times;

• Details from his infant son’s medical records were obtained by the Sun, who published a story about the child’s serious illness.

Brown joins other members of his Labour Party, members of the royal family, victims of terrorism, murder, and their family members in being targeted with shady or allegedly illegal practices by the newspapers. Journalist Carl Bernstein, whose investigation into the Watergate break in helped bring down President Nixon, has dubbed the rapidly expanding scandal “Murdoch’s Watergate.”

Much of the scandal has focused on Rebekah Brooks, the CEO of News International, who was previously editor of the News of the World and the Sun. It was Brooks who contacted the Browns in 2006 to tell them that she had obtained — likely in violation of privacy rules– records showing that their four-month-old son Fraser was suffering from cystic fibrosis.

But while victims have demanded that Rebekah Brooks resign, Murdoch has given her an “extraordinary show of support,” taking her to dinner yesterday and saying she is his “top priority.”

But Murdoch may soon have bigger problems on his hands. Legal experts told the AP today that his company could face criminal prosecution in the U.S. for his U.K. papers’ alleged bribery of British police officers, which would be a violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). According to the the Department of Justice, “The FCPA prohibits payments made in order to assist the firm in obtaining or retaining business.” Thus the papers’ use of bribery to obtain information which helped sell newspapers could fall under the act’s purview. And even though the bribery occurred entirely in Britian, NewsCorp is an American company, incorporated in Delaware, and held accountable for its foreign subsidiary’s actions. Even if the corporation wasn’t directly involved in bribery, it could be found in violation of the law for turning a “blind eye.”

The legal experts told the AP they would be surprised if the Securities and Exchange Commission and the DoJ have not already opened investigations into the matter and said the decision to shutter News of the World was potentially an attempt to limit Murdoch and NewsCorp’s legal exposure.

NewsCorp is also the parent company of the Wall Street Journal and Fox News, which have largely ignored the scandal.

ThinkProgress Justice is hiring three law students for a one-year research and writing fellowship to commence this fall. Each fellow will work with ThinkProgress’ Justice Editor to produce three or four blog posts a week for publication on their own byline.

The ideal candidate will:

• Be a current law student with strong academic credentials at an ABA-accredited law school (preference to third year law students).
• Possess strong research and writing skills, including the ability to explain complex legal and policy concepts in a short, 300-600 word blog post.
• Have a solid grounding in basic constitutional doctrine. Familiarity with other politically salient legal subjects — such as environmental law, voting law, financial regulatory law, or civil rights law — is a big plus.
• Be able to turn around content quickly to respond to a rapidly changing news cycle.
• Possess a keen interest in the intersection of politics and the law.

The fellowships are part-time and will require 5-10 hours of work per week. ThinkProgress Justice Law Student Fellows will receive a weekly stipend for the year of the fellowship after an initial trial period, and may work from home or from their law school. Fellows need not reside in Washington, DC, and law students from across the country are encouraged to apply.

To apply: please send a cover letter, resume and a brief (no more than 500 word) writing sample to Ian Millhiser at imillhiser /at/ americanprogress.org. Writing samples should be written as if they were for publication on ThinkProgress Justice and should not be academic papers. Applications considered on a rolling basis.

The Salt Lake City Tribune reports that President Obama is vetting a truly bizarre candidate for a U.S. Attorney position in Utah — a senior adviser to tenther Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT):

The White House is vetting David Barlow, who is currently the legal counsel to U.S. Sen. Mike Lee, to possibly be the next U.S. attorney for Utah, and Utah Democrats aren’t happy about it. The office, a presidential appointment, has been vacant for 18 months. [...]

“I think it’s a travesty,” said Todd Taylor, executive director of the Utah Democratic Party. “There is a phenomenally talented bunch of Democratic attorneys in the state of Utah. To have to make that kind of political compromise is just ridiculous.”

Taylor said the state party has recommended more than a half-dozen qualified candidates and, to his knowledge, none had heard any response from the White House. “It’s an insult,” Taylor said.

Barlow’s close association with Lee raises very serious questions about whether he can be trusted to enforce laws intended to protect ordinary Americans ability to earn a living, be safe from natural disasters and enjoy a secure retirement. Lee believes that federal child labor laws, FEMA, food stamps, the FDA, Medicaid, income assistance for the poor, and even Medicare and Social Security violate the Constitution. Before Barlow can be trusted to serve as Utah’s chief federal prosecutor, he should — at a bare minimum — be required to disavow all of his boss’ most indefensible positions on the Constitution, and he should testify that he will enforce each of these laws vigorously and without reservation to the extent his job requires him to do so.

To be fair to Obama, the fact that Barlow is being vetted does not necessarily mean that he will be nominated. The Obama Administration previously vetted former Bush Administration official Scott Burns for the same job at the urging of Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), but appears to have abandoned that suggestion. It is entirely possible that the Barlow vetting will end similarly.

Should the White House decide to move forward with Barlow, however, it should go without saying that Utah cannot afford a U.S. Attorney who will use his position in the Justice Department to push Mike Lee’s radical constitutional agenda. U.S. attorneys are supposed to be above partisanship, so there is no reason that a Republican cannot serve in that job with distinction. But Barlow’s close association with one of America’s most radical tenthers raises very serious questions about whether he is fit for a position of serious responsibility within the Justice Department.