In RE to the DMCA/Dmitry affair, private enforcement, new intellectual property enforcement divisions, etc. -- We are increasingly holding individuals criminally responsible for crimes against corporations and many feel an imbalance, or even a double-standard, in terms of corporate accountability for crimes against people. I received the following today, by Robert Weissman, co-author of _Corporate Predators_, (corporatepredators.org) in regard to the Sara Lee Ball Park Frank Hot Dog incident, in which 21 people died. It prompted them to visit the White House to inquire as to 'a corporate death penalty.' http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/corp-focus/2001/000081.html ~Aimee
Quoting Aimee Farr (aimee.farr@pobox.com):
I received the following today, by Robert Weissman, co-author of _Corporate Predators_, (corporatepredators.org) in regard to the Sara Lee Ball Park Frank Hot Dog incident, in which 21 people died. It prompted them to visit the White House to inquire as to 'a corporate death penalty.'
How strange. It's always individuals working within a corporation who should be culpable for offences committed as a result of its business practices. Will this not have the effect of divorcing personal responsibility further from the executive and employees of a company? Furthermore, might not the `death' of a company in some cases penalise other companies which depend on the products or services of the `offender' leading to a reluctance to prosecute the largest and arguably the worst criminals? At least when the responsible individuals are prosecuted, there is an opportunity to `clean house' and reform the offending institution, as it were.
http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/corp-focus/2001/000081.html
It might be amusing to consider how many deaths Microsoft has caused. You know, all the strokes, heart-attacks, and anurysms resulting directly from the frustration of having to re-install Windows after the n-th crash or virus infection and the concomitant loss of data. Let's have a two minute hate. Chant "Lynch Bill Gates!" with your nearest Party comrades when ready. Regards, Steve -- ``If religion were nothing but an illusion and a sham, there could be no philosophy of it. The study of it would belong to abnormal psychology.... Religion cannot afford to claim exemption from philosophical enquiry. If it attempts to do so on the grounds of sanctity, it can only draw upon itself suspicion that it is afraid to face the music.'' -- H. J. Paton, "The Modern Predicament"
I received the following today, by Robert Weissman, co-author of _Corporate Predators_, (corporatepredators.org) in regard to the Sara Lee Ball Park Frank Hot Dog incident, in which 21 people died. It prompted
Quoting Aimee Farr (aimee.farr@pobox.com): them to visit
the White House to inquire as to 'a corporate death penalty.'
How strange. It's always individuals working within a corporation who should be culpable for offences committed as a result of its business practices. Will this not have the effect of divorcing personal responsibility further from the executive and employees of a company?
Pht. Doan' ask me, I have law school programming. Just us sheeple reporting in. ~FLUFFY
Quoting Aimee Farr (aimee.farr@pobox.com):
Pht. Doan' ask me, I have law school programming.
In cobol, perchance?
Just us sheeple reporting in.
As you were.
~FLUFFY
Regards, B1FF -- ``If religion were nothing but an illusion and a sham, there could be no philosophy of it. The study of it would belong to abnormal psychology.... Religion cannot afford to claim exemption from philosophical enquiry. If it attempts to do so on the grounds of sanctity, it can only draw upon itself suspicion that it is afraid to face the music.'' -- H. J. Paton, "The Modern Predicament"
At 03:24 PM 7/26/2001 +0000, Steve Thompson wrote:
Quoting Aimee Farr (aimee.farr@pobox.com):
I received the following today, by Robert Weissman, co-author of _Corporate Predators_, (corporatepredators.org) in regard to the Sara Lee Ball Park Frank Hot Dog incident, in which 21 people died. It prompted them to visit the White House to inquire as to 'a corporate death penalty.'
How strange. It's always individuals working within a corporation who should be culpable for offences committed as a result of its business practices. Will this not have the effect of divorcing personal responsibility further from the executive and employees of a company?
Furthermore, might not the `death' of a company in some cases penalise other companies which depend on the products or services of the `offender' leading to a reluctance to prosecute the largest and arguably the worst criminals?
At least when the responsible individuals are prosecuted, there is an opportunity to `clean house' and reform the offending institution, as it were.
Would holding both the corporation and its executives libel for the same crime constitute a form of double jeopardy ;-) Is it possible for the injured parties to criminally prosecute the alleged offenders under federal law (i.e., substitute for the DOJ)? If not, then that is what is needed. The govenment should not enjoy a privileged position on enforcement of criminal statutes. steve
Quoting Steve Schear (schear@lvcm.com):
Would holding both the corporation and its executives libel for the same crime constitute a form of double jeopardy ;-)
I don't see how that could be. Blame and punitive sanctions are, if I am not mistaken, apportioned according to degree of culpability.
Is it possible for the injured parties to criminally prosecute the alleged
But is it practical to do so?
offenders under federal law (i.e., substitute for the DOJ)? If not, then that is what is needed. The govenment should not enjoy a privileged position on enforcement of criminal statutes.
Regards, Steve -- ``If religion were nothing but an illusion and a sham, there could be no philosophy of it. The study of it would belong to abnormal psychology.... Religion cannot afford to claim exemption from philosophical enquiry. If it attempts to do so on the grounds of sanctity, it can only draw upon itself suspicion that it is afraid to face the music.'' -- H. J. Paton, "The Modern Predicament"
At 09:07 PM 7/26/2001 +0000, Steve Thompson wrote:
Quoting Steve Schear (schear@lvcm.com):
Would holding both the corporation and its executives libel for the same crime constitute a form of double jeopardy ;-)
I don't see how that could be. Blame and punitive sanctions are, if I am not mistaken, apportioned according to degree of culpability.
Is it possible for the injured parties to criminally prosecute the alleged
But is it practical to do so?
Grand Juries could be required to equally consider law enforcement and independent prosecutions. From a economic standpoint, if the aggrieved parties first win a big civil judgement against the companies it could fund a substantial criminal prosecution effort. It also might serve to reduce the degree of discretionary prosecutions so many decry.
offenders under federal law (i.e., substitute for the DOJ)? If not, then that is what is needed. The govenment should not enjoy a privileged position on enforcement of criminal statutes.
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Steve Schear wrote:
Would holding both the corporation and its executives libel for the same crime constitute a form of double jeopardy ;-)
Drawing the distinction in the first place is schizophrenic. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Thompson wrote:
Quoting Aimee Farr (aimee.farr@pobox.com):
I received the following today, by Robert Weissman, co-author of _Corporate Predators_, (corporatepredators.org) in regard to the Sara Lee Ball Park Frank Hot Dog incident, in which 21 people died. It prompted them to visit the White House to inquire as to 'a corporate death penalty.'
Over here in t he UK there is a company called Railtrack that about 20 million people would be happy to see executed :-)
How strange. It's always individuals working within a corporation who should be culpable for offences committed as a result of its business practices.
There is surely no suggestion that the individuals cease to be liable, just that the whole company is as well?
Will this not have the effect of divorcing personal responsibility further from the executive and employees of a company?
But if the corporation as a whole is killed the shareholders lose their investment. XYZ inc no longer exists, there are no shares, no dividends. Presumably the assets of the company get sold off at public auction like houses with unpaid mortgages, or cars picked up off the street.
Furthermore, might not the `death' of a company in some cases penalise other companies which depend on the products or services of the `offender' leading to a reluctance to prosecute the largest and arguably the worst criminals?
Most businesses have competitors, who will no doubt be happy to pick up the sales. Along with the assets, sold off cheap. It will penalise the workers, which might be more important to government, because they will have votes and a large company will have many votes, which might be very concentrated. Not much of a problem in a big city, where there are always other jobs, but in a small town or semi-rural area a single employer might be a huge part of the local economy.
At least when the responsible individuals are prosecuted, there is an opportunity to `clean house' and reform the offending institution, as it were.
Shareholder pressure should do that very effectively. If the managers break the law, you lose your investment. A big boost to corporate ethics. My previous employer's business directly killed about 200 people during the years I worked there. I mean directly, in industrial accidents, I'm not talking about pollution or product liability. But shareholder pressure would have been very effective in helping keep things safe. Ken Brown
Quoting Ken Brown (k.brown@ccs.bbk.ac.uk):
Steve Thompson wrote:
Quoting Aimee Farr (aimee.farr@pobox.com):
I received the following today, by Robert Weissman, co-author of _Corporate Predators_, (corporatepredators.org) in regard to the Sara Lee Ball Park Frank Hot Dog incident, in which 21 people died. It prompted them to visit the White House to inquire as to 'a corporate death penalty.'
Over here in t he UK there is a company called Railtrack that about 20 million people would be happy to see executed :-)
Heh.
How strange. It's always individuals working within a corporation who should be culpable for offences committed as a result of its business practices.
There is surely no suggestion that the individuals cease to be liable, just that the whole company is as well?
It doesn't seem reasonable to legitimise the legal fiction of "corporation as person" at all. A corporation is really nothing more than the aggregate of its employees skills and assets (which are already considered to be `owned' by the corporation as opposed to its principals.)
Will this not have the effect of divorcing personal responsibility further from the executive and employees of a company?
But if the corporation as a whole is killed the shareholders lose their investment. XYZ inc no longer exists, there are no shares, no dividends. Presumably the assets of the company get sold off at public auction like houses with unpaid mortgages, or cars picked up off the street.
Which _could_ incentivize the shareholders to pressure the board of directors to ensure the corporations actions don't result in a loss. However, individuals working within a corporation will know that if they cause the corporation to commit an offence, their personal risk will be less for the reason that the `corporation' can take the fall for them.
Furthermore, might not the `death' of a company in some cases penalise other companies which depend on the products or services of the `offender' leading to a reluctance to prosecute the largest and arguably the worst criminals?
Most businesses have competitors, who will no doubt be happy to pick up the sales. Along with the assets, sold off cheap.
Which incentivizes a new type of piracy. Install provocateurs in the employ of a competitor, have them `set-up' the company for a fall. The law then convicts and breaks up the company. End result: you no longer have a competitor and the true offenders get off with minimal punishment and collect large deposits in their off-shore accounts.
It will penalise the workers, which might be more important to
Who gives a shit about the workers? Certainly not the governement, and the major shareholders won't either.
government, because they will have votes and a large company will have many votes, which might be very concentrated. Not much of a problem in a big city, where there are always other jobs, but in a small town or semi-rural area a single employer might be a huge part of the local economy.
Which justifies what? Besides, the power of, say, the UAW will ensure that Ford or GM will never be held culpable for any major offenses. Same thing goes with Oil companies, Union Carbides, and the rest.
At least when the responsible individuals are prosecuted, there is an opportunity to `clean house' and reform the offending institution, as it were.
Shareholder pressure should do that very effectively. If the managers break the law, you lose your investment. A big boost to corporate ethics.
I doubt it.
My previous employer's business directly killed about 200 people during the years I worked there. I mean directly, in industrial accidents, I'm not talking about pollution or product liability. But shareholder pressure would have been very effective in helping keep things safe.
For those responsible for ensuring workplace safety?
Ken Brown
Regards, Steve -- ``If religion were nothing but an illusion and a sham, there could be no philosophy of it. The study of it would belong to abnormal psychology.... Religion cannot afford to claim exemption from philosophical enquiry. If it attempts to do so on the grounds of sanctity, it can only draw upon itself suspicion that it is afraid to face the music.'' -- H. J. Paton, "The Modern Predicament"
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Steve Thompson wrote:
How strange. It's always individuals working within a corporation who should be culpable for offences committed as a result of its business practices. Will this not have the effect of divorcing personal responsibility further from the executive and employees of a company?
Furthermore, might not the `death' of a company in some cases penalise other companies which depend on the products or services of the `offender' leading to a reluctance to prosecute the largest and arguably the worst criminals?
At least when the responsible individuals are prosecuted, there is an opportunity to `clean house' and reform the offending institution, as it were.
The only way to 'clean house' is to remove humans from the equation, not reasonable. What happens instead is that the business practice of the business changes so the previous chain of evidence is destroyed in a timely fashion or else doesn't exist. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
At 12:05 AM -0500 7/26/01, Aimee Farr wrote:
In RE to the DMCA/Dmitry affair, private enforcement, new intellectual property enforcement divisions, etc. --
We are increasingly holding individuals criminally responsible for crimes against corporations and many feel an imbalance, or even a double-standard, in terms of corporate accountability for crimes against people.
Isn't this the real meaning of fascism, as implemented by those wacky Axis powers and and supported by the likes of Henry Ford? -- jet@tivo.com 408.519.9509 0x19D3BAF5, 5CCF 2251 5B45 0ABA B91D AD81 4A60 3401 19D3 BAF5
Repeal the 1870 corporation law that created this nightmare. On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Aimee Farr wrote:
In RE to the DMCA/Dmitry affair, private enforcement, new intellectual property enforcement divisions, etc. --
We are increasingly holding individuals criminally responsible for crimes against corporations and many feel an imbalance, or even a double-standard, in terms of corporate accountability for crimes against people.
I received the following today, by Robert Weissman, co-author of _Corporate Predators_, (corporatepredators.org) in regard to the Sara Lee Ball Park Frank Hot Dog incident, in which 21 people died. It prompted them to visit the White House to inquire as to 'a corporate death penalty.'
http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/corp-focus/2001/000081.html
-- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
participants (7)
-
Aimee Farr -
j eric townsend -
Jim Choate -
Jim Choate
-
Ken Brown -
Steve Schear -
Steve Thompson