Remix.run Logo
nobody9999 3 days ago

>Notice that everything on GP's list is fraud (except Gohn of Nissan who was accused of embezzlement and failure to report income). It's very difficult for an executive to go to prison any other way.

I did notice. Which is why my list included mass deaths and massive pollution/ecological destruction, some of which we still don't know what the eventual damage/death toll will be.

And that's the bigger issue: property crimes are considered more serious than mass murder and poisoning our world. Just as with the fraudsters, the corporate veil should have been pierced for the murderers and despoilers of our environment, with harsh prison sentences for those whose avarice and sociopathy allowed them to murder and despoil.

Civil liability is fine, and the "corporate death penalty" (revoking charters, barring directors/managers from future employment, etc.) should be invoked with extreme prejudice in those circumstances as well.

But we don't do that. Because corporations are, in the above circumstance, not "people", but a legal fiction protecting its owners from liability. But when it benefits the corporation and its owners/managers, a corporation is a "person."

I'd say we should work it the other way -- if a corporation is responsible for deaths and despoilation, all the owners should have a share in the punishment.

That way, after a few thousand wealthy individual investors and the owners of a few dozen hedge funds/investment houses are put in SuperMax for a decade or two for the misdeeds of the companies in which they've invested. And let's not make the boards of directors, C-Suite and any others directly involved feel left out either. They can commiserate with their fellow scumbags in the prison yard.

That does sound pretty harsh doesn't it? Perhaps too harsh? I don't think so. Because as we're constantly reminded, business responds strongly to incentives.

And if businesses are strongly incentivized to not poison our citizens, kill airplane passengers and destroy our environment with the threat of long prison sentences and a stripping of their assets, I'd expect they'd respond to such incentives.

But, as it is now, when the incentives are to privatize profit and hold harmless those who kill us, make us sick and destroy our environment, those are the incentives to which corporations will respond.

maxbond 3 days ago | parent [-]

To be clear "notice" wasn't really directed at you specifically, more commenters in general. I'm sorry for wording that confusingly, originally I'd replied to GP with a similar comment to yours but your comment was more comprehensive than mine so I deleted it and replied as a sort of footnote.

I'm not really big on incarceration but I broadly agree.

nobody9999 3 days ago | parent [-]

>To be clear "notice" wasn't really directed at you specifically, more commenters in general. I'm sorry for wording that confusingly, originally I'd replied to GP with a similar comment to yours but your comment was more comprehensive than mine so I deleted it and replied as a sort of footnote.

I wasn't confused. I was on exactly the same page as you.

You comment just prompted me to respond with my own thoughts.

It's all good.

>I'm not really big on incarceration but I broadly agree.

I'm not generally huge on it either (I think we over-incarcerate in the US), but as I mentioned, having strong incentives is important to guide corporate behavior. Besides, if an individual (and especially a poor one) caused a train derailment or dumped battery acid in the drinking water causing sickness or death, or sabotaged a plane so that it crashed, you bet your ass they'd be incarcerated.

Why shouldn't we have the same standards for corporations and the wealthy?