3 ms·
It is relevant for humans in a legal setting; it is not relevant for corporations. I did not say that civil disobedience has no legal significance for humans--
by gotothedoctor 9y ago
It is relevant for humans in a legal setting; it is not relevant for corporations.
I did not say that civil disobedience has no legal significance for humans--I said it has no legal significance for corporations. Nor did I say it was a source of sympathy--I said it could mitigate liability or punishment.
While it is not a defense for law-breaking by humans, asserting civil disobedience can mitigate punishment or liability for humans; it cannot be used to do the same for corporations.
Jurisdictions, laws and rules make it difficult to generalize (eg some courts accept some mitigating factors but not others), but I've never come across or heard of any case where a corporation could or did claim "civil disobedience" as a mitigating factor for liability or punishment.
- orblivion 9y agoGot it. When you had said that it would mitigate punishment, I assumed you meant in a purely unofficial subjective way. Thanks.
- gotothedoctor 9y agocould, not would. There are many variables. My comments are not intended as official or objective:)
- raleighm 9y ago> "cannot be used to do the same for corporations" What is the basis of that "cannot"? Sentencing guidelines? Inference from cases where it was asserted but rejected because it came from a corporation? Edit: Not asking for a citation. Just want to understand the basis for your view, because the point is an important one (current context aside) and your responses thus far about it feel circular (e.g., doesn't apply because it's irrelevant).