5 ms·

CEOs can be found criminally responsible currently. Counsel, teams of lawyers and in particular auditors are all there to shield them from that risk. Not sure a

CEOs can be found criminally responsible currently. Counsel, teams of lawyers and in particular auditors are all there to shield them from that risk. Not sure anything would change.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
What I am talking about is not having any shield. If there is widespread illegal behavior in the company, the CEO goes to jail, period. It does not matter what their lawyers said, it does not matter what the auditors said. If it happens, they go to jail end of story. The buck stops with them.
- Excel_Wizard 7y ago
  How widespread would the illegal activity have to be for the CEO to be at fault? Warren Buffett has said (roughly), if you have a city of 300,000 people, you have to expect that some of them will commit crimes, and you need police officers for this reason. You should expect the same thing for a company of 300,000 people.
  - behringer 7y ago
    I say start by getting rid of the corporate veil? Outlaw the institution of the corporation. All company owners are now personally liable for their company's debts. Most societal problems would be fixed. Progress might slow down, but is that a bad thing? We're on a collision course with global warming, so slowing down progress and making people personally liable for the environment might be a good thing.
    - nostrademons 7y ago
      You run into evolutionary game theory issues. The reason the world is dominated by corporate states today is because the existence of corporations - formal organizations shielded from legal liability, able to take on projects riskier than any individual would - helped them conquer the rest of the world. Native American tribes didn't have corporations. Pre-colonial India didn't have corporations. Imperial China didn't have corporations. In all cases these civilizations were subjugated through direct corporate influence, oftentimes because the corporate veil allowed institutions like the British East India Corporation or the American Railroads to commit crimes (like genocide) that would've been thoroughly illegal if perpetrated from one individual to another within the society. You'd likely end up with a temporary utopia within the society which gets shattered once another society (which embraces the competition, risk-taking, and technological progress afforded by corporations) decides that your utopia is looking awfully weak and has some nice goodies.
      - anticensor 7y ago
        > formal organizations shielded from legal liability You described governments. Corporations are formal organisations shielded from monetary liability.
    - anticensor 7y ago
      Anonymity and limited liability exists in all but simplest organisations in some form. It is crucial to organisation is greater than its constituents. For countries, it is the legality; for for-profit organisations, it is the monetary liability.
    - Excel_Wizard 7y ago
      Economic progress saves human lives. You're trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
      - behringer 7y ago
        *So far
  - lancepioch 7y ago
    Maybe it shouldn't be possible to have a single company that with such an enormous number of people that it's larger than every single city and town but the largest 70 in the whole country (with a total of nearly 20k cities and 16k towns).
- awinder 7y ago
  Well you'd have to make that a constitutional amendment in the US at least since it'd run afoul of many basic guaranteed rights. This system sounds like it'd be more likely to create a true social hellscape before it'd solve any problems.
  - SkyBelow 7y ago
    >Well you'd have to make that a constitutional amendment in the US at least since it'd run afoul of many basic guaranteed rights. Not really. You make it a strict liability crime, so as long as you can proven the criminal behavior in court, the CEO is found guilty. Their state of mind is irrelevant. We already do this with some crimes and it hasn't face any constitutional challenge. It doesn't matter if you were tricked into the crime, lied about the crime, etc. If you did it, you go to prison. 3d printing gun guy was just convicted under such a law.
  - pgeorgi 7y ago
    > since it'd run afoul of many basic guaranteed rights Such as the guaranteed right to be paid as CEO while not being responsible? As I understand OP there would still be a right to be heard, rule of law, court proceedings and everything. The only thing that shouldn't work anymore is claiming to be too stupid for the job the moment it becomes inconvenient to act out the responsibility that they're paid for so handsomely.
    - howard941 7y ago
      This defense even has a name: "Good heart, empty head". See for ex https://www.pepperlaw.com/publications/why-a-pure-heart-and-empty-head-arent-enough-the-good-faith-defense-in-ponzi-scheme-litigation-2010-07-01/ https://www.pepperlaw.com/publications/why-a-pure-heart-and-...
- nugget 7y ago
  My sense is that there are already laws that allow for the criminal prosecution of responsible executives, up to and including the CEO if he or she knew. But there is a lack of enforcement, whether because of political pressure or mis-aligned incentives or some other motives obscured from public view. As a result, white collar criminals of this type are rarely ever prosecuted. The best example of this is probably the entire Great Financial Crisis from 2008 on. Rampant illegal and criminal fraud but - from what I remember - only one executive went to prison. Mostly the Feds levy billions in endless fines. Money might be the best solution after all: if you make whistle blowing lucrative enough, you will make illegal activities very difficult to scale.
- _-david-_ 7y ago
  Are you saying CEOs should sent to jail with no trial even if they had no clue about criminal activity? Jailing people without a trial seems extremely dangerous. If we can jail CEOs without due process why stop at CEOs?
OrgNet 7y ago
maybe they can, but they don't, usually, even if they should.

CEOs can be found criminally responsible currently. Counsel, teams of lawyers and in particular auditors are all there to shield them from that risk. Not sure anything would change.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago

What I am talking about is not having any shield. If there is widespread illegal behavior in the company, the CEO goes to jail, period. It does not matter what their lawyers said, it does not matter what the auditors said. If it happens, they go to jail end of story. The buck stops with them.

Excel_Wizard 7y ago
How widespread would the illegal activity have to be for the CEO to be at fault? Warren Buffett has said (roughly), if you have a city of 300,000 people, you have to expect that some of them will commit crimes, and you need police officers for this reason. You should expect the same thing for a company of 300,000 people.
- behringer 7y ago
  I say start by getting rid of the corporate veil? Outlaw the institution of the corporation. All company owners are now personally liable for their company's debts. Most societal problems would be fixed. Progress might slow down, but is that a bad thing? We're on a collision course with global warming, so slowing down progress and making people personally liable for the environment might be a good thing.
  - nostrademons 7y ago
    You run into evolutionary game theory issues. The reason the world is dominated by corporate states today is because the existence of corporations - formal organizations shielded from legal liability, able to take on projects riskier than any individual would - helped them conquer the rest of the world. Native American tribes didn't have corporations. Pre-colonial India didn't have corporations. Imperial China didn't have corporations. In all cases these civilizations were subjugated through direct corporate influence, oftentimes because the corporate veil allowed institutions like the British East India Corporation or the American Railroads to commit crimes (like genocide) that would've been thoroughly illegal if perpetrated from one individual to another within the society. You'd likely end up with a temporary utopia within the society which gets shattered once another society (which embraces the competition, risk-taking, and technological progress afforded by corporations) decides that your utopia is looking awfully weak and has some nice goodies.
    - anticensor 7y ago
      > formal organizations shielded from legal liability You described governments. Corporations are formal organisations shielded from monetary liability.
  - anticensor 7y ago
    Anonymity and limited liability exists in all but simplest organisations in some form. It is crucial to organisation is greater than its constituents. For countries, it is the legality; for for-profit organisations, it is the monetary liability.
  - Excel_Wizard 7y ago
    Economic progress saves human lives. You're trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
    - behringer 7y ago
      *So far
- lancepioch 7y ago
  Maybe it shouldn't be possible to have a single company that with such an enormous number of people that it's larger than every single city and town but the largest 70 in the whole country (with a total of nearly 20k cities and 16k towns).
awinder 7y ago
Well you'd have to make that a constitutional amendment in the US at least since it'd run afoul of many basic guaranteed rights. This system sounds like it'd be more likely to create a true social hellscape before it'd solve any problems.
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  >Well you'd have to make that a constitutional amendment in the US at least since it'd run afoul of many basic guaranteed rights. Not really. You make it a strict liability crime, so as long as you can proven the criminal behavior in court, the CEO is found guilty. Their state of mind is irrelevant. We already do this with some crimes and it hasn't face any constitutional challenge. It doesn't matter if you were tricked into the crime, lied about the crime, etc. If you did it, you go to prison. 3d printing gun guy was just convicted under such a law.
- pgeorgi 7y ago
  > since it'd run afoul of many basic guaranteed rights Such as the guaranteed right to be paid as CEO while not being responsible? As I understand OP there would still be a right to be heard, rule of law, court proceedings and everything. The only thing that shouldn't work anymore is claiming to be too stupid for the job the moment it becomes inconvenient to act out the responsibility that they're paid for so handsomely.
  - howard941 7y ago
    This defense even has a name: "Good heart, empty head". See for ex https://www.pepperlaw.com/publications/why-a-pure-heart-and-empty-head-arent-enough-the-good-faith-defense-in-ponzi-scheme-litigation-2010-07-01/ https://www.pepperlaw.com/publications/why-a-pure-heart-and-...
nugget 7y ago
My sense is that there are already laws that allow for the criminal prosecution of responsible executives, up to and including the CEO if he or she knew. But there is a lack of enforcement, whether because of political pressure or mis-aligned incentives or some other motives obscured from public view. As a result, white collar criminals of this type are rarely ever prosecuted. The best example of this is probably the entire Great Financial Crisis from 2008 on. Rampant illegal and criminal fraud but - from what I remember - only one executive went to prison. Mostly the Feds levy billions in endless fines. Money might be the best solution after all: if you make whistle blowing lucrative enough, you will make illegal activities very difficult to scale.
_-david-_ 7y ago
Are you saying CEOs should sent to jail with no trial even if they had no clue about criminal activity? Jailing people without a trial seems extremely dangerous. If we can jail CEOs without due process why stop at CEOs?

OrgNet 7y ago

maybe they can, but they don't, usually, even if they should.