> Otherwise it opens up any executive to tons of personal risk by taking a leadership role in any major public company with any sort of consumer liability. I t

> Otherwise it opens up any executive to tons of personal risk by taking a leadership role in any major public company with any sort of consumer liability. I think executives should be at major personal risk when their companies do things that cause injury or death to many people. It will force them to make sure that the people under them are following the rules and that their products are safe. Mistakes will surely happen and I don't think we should ignore it when a company who makes every reasonable effort to protect their customers still fails and people are hurt. That shouldn't necessarily get them off the hook entirely but it should matter. In cases where it's more obvious like in the case of the tobacco industry intentionally misleading customers about the risks of their product, or the auto industry selling cars they know are dangerous, or this one where the company was well aware of the problem but did nothing in order to protect their bottom line they should very clearly be held responsible. I'm not sure that holding executives responsible for clear exploitation would make them more likely to take risks. It seems to me that as long they know they wont be held accountable for killing people they'll be more likely to do it. Companies would also be less likely to promote reckless people if they knew doing so could mean they might face a corporate death penalty. I do agree however that the specifics of who to hold accountable and to what extent they are punished are complicated issues. We've had decades of examples showing it's far past time we put in the work to come up with something however.