6 ms·

> The EU considers the death penalty as a cruel, inhuman and irreversible punishment which fails to act as a deterrent to criminal behaviour. http://www.eidhr.

by fwn 9y ago

> The EU considers the death penalty as a cruel, inhuman and irreversible punishment which fails to act as a deterrent to criminal behaviour. http://www.eidhr.eu/highlights/death-penalty http://www.eidhr.eu/highlights/death-penalty edit: Hmm, now I'm not sure whether you meant a companies metaphorical death? ..I'll leave it here anyhow. :)

jacquesm 9y ago
Revocation of corporate charter is the equivalent of the death penalty for a corporation.
- ryandrake 9y ago
  Doesn't happen often (at all?) and even if it did, what stops the company's leadership from starting a new, identical company with a identical board, employee list, etc. the next second?
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    Jail?
    - ryandrake 9y ago
      Sorry, I don't know how "losing your corporate charter" works. Who goes to jail?
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    Having to raise all that capital over again, or being temporarily or permanently barred from the industry, a common sanction for bad actors in the securities world.
  - matt4077 9y ago
    It doesn't really happen. What does happen is companies going out of business from being unable to pay fines and/or liabilities to harmed parties. There are different rules in each country around eligibility to serve in certain company functions, but those will usually only come into play after an individual's conviction for a crime committed in a business context. There are one and a half I've heard of actually happening in the real world: (1) (frequently) you'll be barred from serving as CEO or starting a corporation after a conviction for criminal bankruptcy, and (2) board-level positions for banks have rather strict requirements that would preclude most people with recent convictions for serious crimes. I've only heard of one case of (2) being relevant, which was the possibility of Deutsche Bank's CEO having to resign after a plea deal for one of their many scandals.
- tomp 9y ago
  In contrast to humans, who have the right to live, companies have the privilege to exist.
  - dec0dedab0de 9y ago
    In contrast to humans, who have the right to live, companies have the privilege to exist. I agree with your sentiment, but I consider being alive the greatest privilege.
    - ionised 9y ago
      privilege implies that someone has the right to take it away
      - thecrazyone 9y ago
        Wouldn't that inhibit someone's else's rights? Companies are made of people after all, no?
        tomp 9y ago
        But they have certain "privileges" granted by society (i.e. by consensus of the majority of he population). This only works for as long as the society deems companies beneficial to the wellbeing of the people; once that ceases to be true, the rights or privileges of the company/-ies should be modified or revoked.
        thecrazyone 9y ago
        This is where I have a problem. "This only works for as long as the society deems companies beneficial to the wellbeing of the people" said another way is collective good trumps (no pun) individual liberties, this is just communism worded differently. If you were to logically implement or even deduce what this implies is communism and that is bad as seen by both empirically and logical (deontological) evidence/proofs. What has the majority done to build a company that they can take it away? If you say they've made transactions or buy buying the stuff the company makes, then I'd say they got their money's worth and that's it. There was no surplus. Additional rights were not part of that deal. So that can't be an objection. Let's unpack this. As an example, I'm working at this company. I do no harm to others, neither does the company, but the society has the right to take this away because majority says so (for whatever reason)? So if you can take away somebody's job and their property, the company, because a majority says so, I don't see how that's ethical.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- pjc50 9y ago
  I'm not sure how this actually works in UK law, or any other EU country, or whether it's even possible. Companies can be dissolved, because they have ceased to function: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/company-strike-off-dissolution-and-restoration/strike-off-dissolution-and-restoration https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/company-strike-of... (see the amazing list of names in 10.3, including "The Queen’s and Lord Treasurer’s Remembrancer") What usually happens to a sufficiently badly behaving company is that the directors can be struck off: https://www.gov.uk/company-director-disqualification https://www.gov.uk/company-director-disqualification There is also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Manslaughter_and_Corporate_Homicide_Act_2007 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Manslaughter_and_Cor... , which is used when there is gross negligence relating to safety which gets someone killed. (I think that may have been influenced by the long campaign after https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marchioness_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marchioness_disaster , but I'm not sure)
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
danmaz74 9y ago
Surely "prosecuted to death" was a figure of speech??
ionised 9y ago
I don't think he meant it literally.

by fwn 9y ago

jacquesm 9y ago

Revocation of corporate charter is the equivalent of the death penalty for a corporation.

ryandrake 9y ago
Doesn't happen often (at all?) and even if it did, what stops the company's leadership from starting a new, identical company with a identical board, employee list, etc. the next second?
- jacquesm 9y ago
  Jail?
  - ryandrake 9y ago
    Sorry, I don't know how "losing your corporate charter" works. Who goes to jail?
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  Having to raise all that capital over again, or being temporarily or permanently barred from the industry, a common sanction for bad actors in the securities world.
- matt4077 9y ago
  It doesn't really happen. What does happen is companies going out of business from being unable to pay fines and/or liabilities to harmed parties. There are different rules in each country around eligibility to serve in certain company functions, but those will usually only come into play after an individual's conviction for a crime committed in a business context. There are one and a half I've heard of actually happening in the real world: (1) (frequently) you'll be barred from serving as CEO or starting a corporation after a conviction for criminal bankruptcy, and (2) board-level positions for banks have rather strict requirements that would preclude most people with recent convictions for serious crimes. I've only heard of one case of (2) being relevant, which was the possibility of Deutsche Bank's CEO having to resign after a plea deal for one of their many scandals.
tomp 9y ago
In contrast to humans, who have the right to live, companies have the privilege to exist.
- dec0dedab0de 9y ago
  In contrast to humans, who have the right to live, companies have the privilege to exist. I agree with your sentiment, but I consider being alive the greatest privilege.
  - ionised 9y ago
    privilege implies that someone has the right to take it away
    - thecrazyone 9y ago
      Wouldn't that inhibit someone's else's rights? Companies are made of people after all, no?
      - tomp 9y ago
        But they have certain "privileges" granted by society (i.e. by consensus of the majority of he population). This only works for as long as the society deems companies beneficial to the wellbeing of the people; once that ceases to be true, the rights or privileges of the company/-ies should be modified or revoked.
        thecrazyone 9y ago
        This is where I have a problem. "This only works for as long as the society deems companies beneficial to the wellbeing of the people" said another way is collective good trumps (no pun) individual liberties, this is just communism worded differently. If you were to logically implement or even deduce what this implies is communism and that is bad as seen by both empirically and logical (deontological) evidence/proofs. What has the majority done to build a company that they can take it away? If you say they've made transactions or buy buying the stuff the company makes, then I'd say they got their money's worth and that's it. There was no surplus. Additional rights were not part of that deal. So that can't be an objection. Let's unpack this. As an example, I'm working at this company. I do no harm to others, neither does the company, but the society has the right to take this away because majority says so (for whatever reason)? So if you can take away somebody's job and their property, the company, because a majority says so, I don't see how that's ethical.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
pjc50 9y ago
I'm not sure how this actually works in UK law, or any other EU country, or whether it's even possible. Companies can be dissolved, because they have ceased to function: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/company-strike-off-dissolution-and-restoration/strike-off-dissolution-and-restoration https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/company-strike-of... (see the amazing list of names in 10.3, including "The Queen’s and Lord Treasurer’s Remembrancer") What usually happens to a sufficiently badly behaving company is that the directors can be struck off: https://www.gov.uk/company-director-disqualification https://www.gov.uk/company-director-disqualification There is also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Manslaughter_and_Corporate_Homicide_Act_2007 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Manslaughter_and_Cor... , which is used when there is gross negligence relating to safety which gets someone killed. (I think that may have been influenced by the long campaign after https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marchioness_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marchioness_disaster , but I'm not sure)

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

danmaz74 9y ago

Surely "prosecuted to death" was a figure of speech??

ionised 9y ago

I don't think he meant it literally.