4 ms·
This argument can be used against any law, like antitrust law. Having a law department doesn't give you a free pass to break laws.
by codedokode 8y ago
This argument can be used against any law, like antitrust law. Having a law department doesn't give you a free pass to break laws.
- monetus 8y agoMaybe not, but when the cost of breaking the law is less than the gain, it seems logical. A law department is probably better equipped to make that calculation. edit: Reading into the context of 'too big to fail' and 'collateral consequences' reveals exactly that kind of behavior.
- brewdad 8y agoUnless we start throwing the legal department and higher ups into prison then it basically becomes a free pass to break laws. Currently, we assess fines to corporations that violate these laws. It then becomes a cost/benefit analysis weighing the likelihood of getting caught * cost of potential fine vs business value of ignoring the law. Ignoring the law is frequently the correct decision.
- pteredactyl 8y agoAgreed. There needs to be criminal liability for folks like Stumpf and other big bankers/corporate overlords. But do you think our government will ever stand up? Doubtful
- pteredactyl 8y agoExactly. I assume that's part of the point. But having a law doesn't mean people or corporations won't break it out of the 'kindness of their heart'. Or because they're 'good people'. For example, look at 'No gun zones'. You think a criminal is not going rob a bank at gun point because the bank is a no gun zone? If anything it incentivizes them because they know they'll have a monopoly of force upon entering ( if they have a gun, and can fairly assume no one else will because of 'no gun zone' policy )
- gm-conspiracy 8y agoNo, but when there are only civil penalties at risk, it becomes a business decision, not a moral one.