Recent searches
Search options
@GeePawHill I think we should stop ascribing human attributes to companies. The corporation didn’t lie/cheat/steal. People did and we shouldn’t let them hide behind a legal entity because _that_ is what corporation’s real purpose—to abstract responsibility from the few rookie in power
@jamie @GeePawHill This makes me think: Why do the people in companies get away with crimes? Why don’t they get punished the same as if they carried out the crime when not employed?
It seems that for most things companies do, the company might get a fine but otherwise there’s little consequence or deterrent for carrying out the crime in the first place.
@jamie @GeePawHill I get that it’s a protection for employees, that they’re not personally liable. So yeah, if they can prove they were coerced into the actions that caused the crime (i.e. their job would have been in danger if they didn’t do it) their punishment may be reduced and that of their manager(s) increased (befehl ist befehl isn’t an excusable defence, after all), but they should still be liable.
@jamie @GeePawHill At least for crimes against consumers, society, and the environment. I’m not as sure about inter-company crime.
Anyway, companies would pretty quickly start making less destructive decisions if person(s) who carried out a crime were liable, along with any manager of the employee who did the crime, who did know or should have known about the crime.
@jamie @GeePawHill Thanks for coming to my TED talk.
@resuna @Brendanjones @jamie @GeePawHill Ltd. doesn't shield you from criminal liability.
@erispoe @Brendanjones @jamie @GeePawHill
Technically, no, it shouldn't. But Wall Street finds its own uses for things (to misquote Burning Chrome).
@resuna @erispoe @jamie @GeePawHill Here's a perfect example. A company has intentionally broken laws so badly that it has to pay $1.65 billion, but nobody is going to jail.
@Brendanjones @resuna @jamie @GeePawHill Because it's not an individual criminal liability. The problem is with the law, it's not that individuals are using companies to be shielded from criminal liability.
@erispoe @Brendanjones @jamie @GeePawHill
The problem is that the law defines actions that are actually the actions of individual members of the organization as actions "by" the organization.
It is possible in the case of criminal actions to say "no, this agent of the corporation made the decision and is liable" but it happens rarely and requires blatant malfeasance.
@resuna @erispoe @jamie @GeePawHill Yeah my point exactly. The problem is indeed with the law, because when you think about it, it's actually quite odd that a group of people doing terrible things can face no personal consequence just because we've made up a particular construct called a 'company'.
I get the advantages of protecting people from personal financial liability if a company goes into debt, that's fine.