Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nenjin]

It'll convince the people they put in charge not to fuck around, unless the new guy is stone cold retarded anyway.  That's the point of a law.  You think CEOs like being charged with crimes?

Considering the consequences are often financial and not criminal, and the value of their parachute might often outweigh any tarnishing of their reputation.....yeah. I'd argue some of them are ok with being charged with crimes. It's not like they're going to jail for selling crack or killing someone, amirite?

[Neonivek]

The solution to that legal conundrum is easy - when a corporation is charged with a crime, whoever was in charge of the company at the time it was committed is responsible.  That's how the law already works, in the rare cases that a specific person is charged at all, when the prosecution decides that a specific person is to blame instead of the company as a whole.

Yeah... The person in charge is already responsible according to the law.

However the problem is that plausable deniability makes them virtually immune to lawsuits (same with Investors and board of dirrectors)

It is in fact set up to be that way. One of the points of Corps is that no one is legally responsible.

[nenjin]

And hence why they have absolutely no reason to act morally or ethically. Group-think and mob mentality isn't just a problem for government.

[Neonivek]

And hence why they have absolutely no reason to act morally or ethically. Group-think and mob mentality isn't just a problem for government.

I thought the current problem with government is the over preoccupation with party strategy as well as the obligation to cater to your sponsors while at the same time baring anyone who doesn't want to play the party system or pay out for sponsors is either ineffective or incapable of climbing the ladder... Then just mass stupidity.

[timotheus]

It is in fact set up to be that way. One of the points of Corps is that no one is legally responsible.

Correct, no one is legally responsible. However the corporation is. What bothers me are the slaps on the wrist corporations receive. a 5 million fine for something that made them billions? Who cares. Now, if they did something akin to garnishing their profits for the extra income their illegal actions earned, like ALL OF IT, that's a different story.

Like, turn over 90 percent of your assets, or the equivalent dollar amount. If not, the articles of incorporation are revoked, and the assets are seized.

[Neonivek]

Actually if the person was legally responsible... they would go to jail... outright.

A Corperation is amazing in that it can commit murder and levy less punishment then a person would.

That is sort of the difference.

Now, if they did something akin to garnishing their profits for the extra income their illegal actions earned, like ALL OF IT, that's a different story

Interestingly enough... That is something. I mean the law already states that people CANNOT earn money off a crime. Corperations can. If they happen to earn more money off of a crime then their legal costs then they can just pocket it.

[palsch]

Not to take this seriously yet, but my favourite case in this area is FCC v. AT&T Inc., partly for this Slate write-up of the Supreme Court arguments.

AT&T slips into the Supreme Court chamber this morning, moments before arguments are set to start. He feels slightly affronted that nobody seems to notice him. (AT&T is a very emotional guy.) AT&T is handsome in the obvious way. (He has the Nights and Weekends plan). After these same justices ruled almost a year ago to the day that he had the same political-speech rights as human people, he's feeling a lot more corporeal than he used to.

The chief justice isn't done, either. He takes up AT&T's claim that since "person" is defined elsewhere in FOIA to include corporations, "personal" should be applied to corporations, too. Mulls Roberts: "I tried to sit down and come up with other examples where the adjective was very different from the root noun. It turns out it is not hard at all. You have craft and crafty. Totally different. Crafty doesn't have much to do with craft. Squirrel, squirrely. Right? I mean, pastor—you have a pastor and pastoral. Same root, totally different."

As Klineberg suggests that AT&T doesn't adhere to the "grammatic imperative" used in the 3rd Circuit ruling, AT&T seems to understand that somewhere along the line, he has lost the confidence of the chief justice. Maybe he isn't a real person, capable of dignity and shame and other strong emotions after all. Maybe if you prick him, he does not bleed. If you tickle him he does not laugh. If you poison him, well. AT&T rises to leave the room. But he suddenly finds that he has no legs to stand on.

But also for the closing section of the 8-0 opinion from Roberts;

     We reject the argument that because “person” is defined for purposes of FOIA to include a corporation, the phrase “personal privacy” in Exemption 7(C) reaches corporations as well. The protection in FOIA against disclosure of law enforcement information on the ground that it would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy does not extend to corporations. We trust that AT&T will not take it personally.

[Aqizzar]

I was actually not aware of that decision, and the fact that it came out 8-0, in this Supreme Court, is extremely reassuring.  That is also the most hilarious article about the Supreme Court I have ever read.

[Pnx]

We reject the argument that because “person” is defined for purposes of FOIA to include a corporation, the phrase “personal privacy” in Exemption 7(C) reaches corporations as well. The protection in FOIA against disclosure of law enforcement information on the ground that it would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy does not extend to corporations. We trust that AT&T will not take it personally.

Pun intended?

[Neonivek]

I was actually not aware of that decision, and the fact that it came out 8-0, in this Supreme Court, is extremely reassuring.  That is also the most hilarious article about the Supreme Court I have ever read.

Ahh so that is why Corps hire detectives and hitmen.

[Bdthemag]

Someone seriously needs to make a drawing of how all major corporations would look if they were people.

[Neonivek]

Someone seriously needs to make a drawing of how all major corporations would look if they were people.

The only problem with that is there is REALLY too much to draw upon to the point where it really just becomes a personal interpretation.

[Glowcat]

Someone seriously needs to make a drawing of how all major corporations would look if they were people.

The only problem with that is there is REALLY too much to draw upon to the point where it really just becomes a personal interpretation.

Isn't this all Art?

[mainiac]

The solution to that legal conundrum is easy - when a corporation is charged with a crime, whoever was in charge of the company at the time it was committed is responsible.  That's how the law already works, in the rare cases that a specific person is charged at all, when the prosecution decides that a specific person is to blame instead of the company as a whole.

In my experience boiling complex legal issues that span multiple judicial systems down into a "simple" solution always sounds a lot, lot better then it is.

All it would take to circumvent such a statute would be to obfuscate the upper management structure of a corporation.  Right now it's possible to prosecute upper management if personal culpability can be shown.  Where does this group culpability fall if a company has no CEO or has a figurehead?  Much better to keep the current system but actually enforce it.

[scriver]

We reject the argument that because “person” is defined for purposes of FOIA to include a corporation, the phrase “personal privacy” in Exemption 7(C) reaches corporations as well. The protection in FOIA against disclosure of law enforcement information on the ground that it would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy does not extend to corporations. We trust that AT&T will not take it personally.

Pun intended?

That is the best pun. Or snark.