BP is a blatant repeat offender — a serial criminal. In 2005, BP's criminal conduct resulted in an explosion at its Texas City Oil Refinery that killed 15 people; this was followed by the Prudhoe Bay, Alaska pipeline oil spill in 2006. In both cases multi-million dollar criminal fines were imposed. BP also paid hundreds of millions of dollars in civil and administrative fines for Occupational Health and Safety Administration and environmental violations. And now, BP is responsible for yet even more deaths and an environmental disaster of devastating proportions.

The multi-million dollar criminal fines paid by BP did nothing to deter its risky ongoing conduct. The fines were simply a cost of doing business for BP. The only way to change this dynamic is to not only charge the corporation but also those individuals responsible for the corporate crime.

If only a portion of the facts that led up to the explosion that have been reported in the media are true, there will be ample evidence to support a criminal prosecution. But the prosecution should not be limited to corporate entities. Reports of employees being pressured not to report problems and failures to follow the company's own internal safety and compliance policies, indicate — at best — a cavalier disregard for the risks inherent in the oil and gas business.

For all its public posturing, actions speak louder than words, and BP's actions speak to a corporate culture that has failed to internalize and implement critical compliance systems that are designed to prevent explosions and spills. It is a corporate culture that clearly values profits, dividends and handsome executive salaries over the health and safety of its employees or protection of our natural resources. Corporate cultures don't spring up spontaneously. Rather they reflect the values, priorities and attitudes of their leaders. Corporate crimes are not committed by phantoms; they are committed by real people who should be held personally responsible.

Although there is an ongoing criminal investigation, it is not clear what federal resources are committed to this effort. After the collapse of Enron, the Department of Justice set up the Enron Task Force and brought in some of the best prosecutors, investigators and experts from across the country to handle the investigation and prosecutions. No expense was spared. Nothing less should be done in this case. The Deepwater Horizon disaster dwarfs all of the financial fraud investigations of the past decade in terms of victims impacted, lives lost, destruction of our natural resources and damage to the economic engines of an entire region of this country.

When tackling this investigation, the justice department must methodically evaluate the facts from every possible angle. Prosecutors should cast their nets widely and be aggressive, creative and willing to combine traditional criminal statutes with any applicable legal doctrine.

For example, since the Deepwater Horizon Rig was a vessel, the Seaman's Manslaughter Law applies. It criminalizes "misconduct, negligence or inattention to duties" by a captain, engineer, pilot or other person employed on a vessel that leads to the death of a person. Under this statute, it is also criminal to cause the death of a person by "fraud, neglect, connivance, misconduct or violation of law." This is a felony punishable by 10 years in jail and should be seriously pursued in light of the deaths that occurred on the rig.

Another valuable tool is the Responsible Corporate Officer (RCO) doctrine. The RCO doctrine developed in the context of food and drug adulteration cases in which the public was put at risk by corporate conduct. Under the RCO doctrine, corporate managers and executives, whose acts or omissions cause the corporate entity to commit a crime, can themselves be held individually responsible for the same crime. This doctrine can be paired with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and Refuse Act to prosecute strict liability crimes that BP has likely committed. Although only punishable by 12 months or less imprisonment per count, a judge in this case might be convinced to impose consecutive rather than concurrent jail terms for each one.

In light of the deaths of 11 innocent men and the widespread environmental and economic catastrophe that continues to unfold, the government cannot settle for just another corporate plea. It must do nothing less than pursue criminal prosecutions of responsible individuals under every supportable theory. Unlike a fine, jail time has real consequences for the individual convicted — it cannot be written off as just another cost of doing business. As importantly, it will impact the conduct of other corporate executives and deter those who are tempted to cut safety and environmental corners in the future.

Professor Jane F. Barrett directs the Environmental Law Clinic at the University of Maryland School of Law. Her e-mail is jbarrett@law.umaryland.edu.