4 ms·

> Who can then be held responsible when a big company commits criminal acts? My opinion: Anyone who took part in it either knowing it is illegal or even if the

> Who can then be held responsible when a big company commits criminal acts? My opinion: Anyone who took part in it either knowing it is illegal or even if the person should have known it is illegal considering his/her position. Same goes for persons that didn't necessarily know about it but acted negligent or ignored standard procedures that are in place to prevent such a thing. > But in general a CEO should have a duty to ask questions why a certain division seems to be doing well Could be negligence, I don't know the specifics here. If it was then he has to be held accountable. But his head might roll in the end regardlessly as people always need a scapegoat, no matter if it's his fault or not. Yet when the government takes action it should not do so just to punish a scapegoat, they should punish because the person broke a law. (if the shareholders fire him even though it's not his fault I couldn't care less, it's their investment and they do not have to act rationally if they want to)

rayiner 10y ago
> My opinion: Anyone who took part in it either knowing it is illegal or even if the person should have known it is illegal considering his/her position. As a general rule, we don't hold people criminally liable for simple negligence.
- DominikR 10y ago
  I did not say "simple" negligence, that is determined by others who know the specifics of this case.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    Criminal law makes a distinction between gross negligence (locking the doors to a busy club so people can't get out which then catches on fire and kills everyone), and ordinary negligence (securing a heavy thing in the air with just a knot that falls and kills someone). Even if someone "should have known," that is almost never enough for criminal liability.
    - DominikR 10y ago
      Thanks I know, I said that I don't know the specifics and that others (lawyers) will have to decide on that.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  As a general rule, knowing that something is illegal isn't part of the required mental state, even for acts that require doing something "knowingly"; that usually refers to knowing the specific facts that make the act illegal, not knowing the law under which those acts are illegal.

rayiner 10y ago

> My opinion: Anyone who took part in it either knowing it is illegal or even if the person should have known it is illegal considering his/her position. As a general rule, we don't hold people criminally liable for simple negligence.

DominikR 10y ago
I did not say "simple" negligence, that is determined by others who know the specifics of this case.
- rayiner 10y ago
  Criminal law makes a distinction between gross negligence (locking the doors to a busy club so people can't get out which then catches on fire and kills everyone), and ordinary negligence (securing a heavy thing in the air with just a knot that falls and kills someone). Even if someone "should have known," that is almost never enough for criminal liability.
  - DominikR 10y ago
    Thanks I know, I said that I don't know the specifics and that others (lawyers) will have to decide on that.
dragonwriter 10y ago
As a general rule, knowing that something is illegal isn't part of the required mental state, even for acts that require doing something "knowingly"; that usually refers to knowing the specific facts that make the act illegal, not knowing the law under which those acts are illegal.