6 ms·

If you want corporations like Facebook to care about breaking the law, you need start handing out jail time for the CEOs. Fining a significant percentage of re

by tsherr 6y ago

If you want corporations like Facebook to care about breaking the law, you need start handing out jail time for the CEOs. Fining a significant percentage of revenue might work, but they'd probably cook the books.

nimbius 6y ago
the best two things that can happen in my opinion (based on a book called 'the chickenshit club') are 0. make corporations admit wrongdoing. almsot every one of them that gets out of a protracted settlement like this without having to own any responsibility at the corporate level for this. They can take the fine. They cannot take the risk to their business and loss of reputation in the market. 1. Stop offering settlements and start prosecuting. Chain up their C levels, withhold bail, deny parole and do not under any circumstances allow the argument of 'hurting the market' sway you. Do the same thing you do to street criminals: freeze their assets and punish companies doling out golden parachutes (AKA bankrolled hush money.) Yes this means you wont always have a perfect record as a prosecutor, yes this means you wont get your shiny DC penthouse after you 'retire' from government life with a law firm in the beltway. and yes it means youll do real work.
- mattmanser 6y ago
  The reason you don't have crazy nonsense like this is that it would be a field-day for political persecution. Prefect for corruption. A politician with clout doesn't like what some CEO said, or that he bankrolled your opponent? Destroy their business by setting the prosecutors on them, jail their CEO, destroy their business by seizing the cashflow, and then 2 years down the line, charges dropped. Whoops.
  - bitcharmer 6y ago
    So if making people responsible for what their companies do is, as you put it "crazy nonsense", what would you suggest instead?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - mattmanser 6y ago
      You can make them responsible, just keep innocent until proven guilty in mind. No reason to do asset seizures or withhold bail or any of the other things he's listed as necessary to hold them responsible. Those are extreme measures that they use in the drug war because they've been losing it for decades and are giving up on the principal of fair laws in a desperate attempt to look effective.
  - close04 6y ago
    Another reason you don't have this is that if an executive knew they become personally responsible for such wrongdoing they would refuse the position. Today the bar is pretty high to punish the executive personally. And if they do take the job they would be hyper-cautious. This is not conducive to high profit. So companies via lobbyists make sure legislation is passed "as it should". The balance of power is incredibly tilted in the favor of corporations, and some governments really did their best to maintain this status-quo.
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    Gee, what country does that sound like? It just occurred to me, seriously.
  - notechback 6y ago
    Well this is why the judiciary should be independent, not political as in the US
    - kelnos 6y ago
      The executive is responsible for prosecuting cases, not the judiciary.
Gibbon1 6y ago
Reminds me years ago I stumbled on an essay by Richard Posner ex Chief Justice of the 7th Circuit. In it he discussed his belief that. a) The only way to keep poor people in line is the threat of prison. b) Middle class people can be kept in line by the threat of fines. c) However the wealthy are kept in line by the threat of losing their good reputation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Posner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Posner
- hatenberg 6y ago
  C Totally doesn't scale in the age of Trump and Moscow Mitch
  - 1121redblackgo 6y ago
    Let's not take the conversation down this direction please.
- ta1234567890 6y ago
  From that list/summary it almost sounds like he's trying to protect the rich by saying that the typical forms of "keeping people in line", don't work with the wealthy. Maybe he should have been more sincere by explaining how the wealthy can buy or trade their way out of trouble, by unduly (or at least unfairly) influencing the legal system to their advantage.
  - Gibbon1 6y ago
    He was saying fines and prison aren't usually needed to keep the wealthy from doing bad things. Poor people have neither reputation or money to lose so prison is the only way to motivate them. Which tells you how much Posner knows about actual poor people. For most poor people their good reputation is the only thing of value they have.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  This is why some countries do income-based fines. Get a speeding ticket in some Scandinavian countries and you may be on the hook for six figures if you’re rich.
elliekelly 6y ago
Why jail time? Hit them where it hurts: their company stock. Corporate malfeasance should (in part) be punished by clawing back some portion of executive stock compensation FBO the victims and/or the government. Some portion of their compensation was “earned” by decisions that violated the law and directly harmed others. Take it away.
- mgraczyk 6y ago
  Zuckerberg doesn't receive any compensation (besides private security for him and his family)

by tsherr 6y ago

nimbius 6y ago

the best two things that can happen in my opinion (based on a book called 'the chickenshit club') are 0. make corporations admit wrongdoing. almsot every one of them that gets out of a protracted settlement like this without having to own any responsibility at the corporate level for this. They can take the fine. They cannot take the risk to their business and loss of reputation in the market. 1. Stop offering settlements and start prosecuting. Chain up their C levels, withhold bail, deny parole and do not under any circumstances allow the argument of 'hurting the market' sway you. Do the same thing you do to street criminals: freeze their assets and punish companies doling out golden parachutes (AKA bankrolled hush money.) Yes this means you wont always have a perfect record as a prosecutor, yes this means you wont get your shiny DC penthouse after you 'retire' from government life with a law firm in the beltway. and yes it means youll do real work.

mattmanser 6y ago
The reason you don't have crazy nonsense like this is that it would be a field-day for political persecution. Prefect for corruption. A politician with clout doesn't like what some CEO said, or that he bankrolled your opponent? Destroy their business by setting the prosecutors on them, jail their CEO, destroy their business by seizing the cashflow, and then 2 years down the line, charges dropped. Whoops.
- bitcharmer 6y ago
  So if making people responsible for what their companies do is, as you put it "crazy nonsense", what would you suggest instead?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - mattmanser 6y ago
    You can make them responsible, just keep innocent until proven guilty in mind. No reason to do asset seizures or withhold bail or any of the other things he's listed as necessary to hold them responsible. Those are extreme measures that they use in the drug war because they've been losing it for decades and are giving up on the principal of fair laws in a desperate attempt to look effective.
- close04 6y ago
  Another reason you don't have this is that if an executive knew they become personally responsible for such wrongdoing they would refuse the position. Today the bar is pretty high to punish the executive personally. And if they do take the job they would be hyper-cautious. This is not conducive to high profit. So companies via lobbyists make sure legislation is passed "as it should". The balance of power is incredibly tilted in the favor of corporations, and some governments really did their best to maintain this status-quo.
- perl4ever 6y ago
  Gee, what country does that sound like? It just occurred to me, seriously.
- notechback 6y ago
  Well this is why the judiciary should be independent, not political as in the US
  - kelnos 6y ago
    The executive is responsible for prosecuting cases, not the judiciary.

Gibbon1 6y ago

Reminds me years ago I stumbled on an essay by Richard Posner ex Chief Justice of the 7th Circuit. In it he discussed his belief that. a) The only way to keep poor people in line is the threat of prison. b) Middle class people can be kept in line by the threat of fines. c) However the wealthy are kept in line by the threat of losing their good reputation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Posner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Posner

hatenberg 6y ago
C Totally doesn't scale in the age of Trump and Moscow Mitch
- 1121redblackgo 6y ago
  Let's not take the conversation down this direction please.
ta1234567890 6y ago
From that list/summary it almost sounds like he's trying to protect the rich by saying that the typical forms of "keeping people in line", don't work with the wealthy. Maybe he should have been more sincere by explaining how the wealthy can buy or trade their way out of trouble, by unduly (or at least unfairly) influencing the legal system to their advantage.
- Gibbon1 6y ago
  He was saying fines and prison aren't usually needed to keep the wealthy from doing bad things. Poor people have neither reputation or money to lose so prison is the only way to motivate them. Which tells you how much Posner knows about actual poor people. For most poor people their good reputation is the only thing of value they have.
ceejayoz 6y ago
This is why some countries do income-based fines. Get a speeding ticket in some Scandinavian countries and you may be on the hook for six figures if you’re rich.

elliekelly 6y ago

Why jail time? Hit them where it hurts: their company stock. Corporate malfeasance should (in part) be punished by clawing back some portion of executive stock compensation FBO the victims and/or the government. Some portion of their compensation was “earned” by decisions that violated the law and directly harmed others. Take it away.

mgraczyk 6y ago
Zuckerberg doesn't receive any compensation (besides private security for him and his family)