3 ms·
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 d
by mattmanser 7y 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 7y agoSo if making people responsible for what their companies do is, as you put it "crazy nonsense", what would you suggest instead?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- mattmanser 7y agoYou 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 7y agoAnother 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 7y agoGee, what country does that sound like? It just occurred to me, seriously.
- notechback 7y agoWell this is why the judiciary should be independent, not political as in the US
- kelnos 7y agoThe executive is responsible for prosecuting cases, not the judiciary.