10 ms·

It is one of the great imbalances in the justice system where technically corporations are people, but criminally don't face anywhere near the same levels of pu

It is one of the great imbalances in the justice system where technically corporations are people, but criminally don't face anywhere near the same levels of punishment.

spoonjim 6y ago
Individuals are frequently given “life without parole,” which effectively erases them, but corporations almost never get this.
ljm 6y ago
They get all of the benefits of personhood but literally none of the drawbacks.
- NegativeLatency 6y ago
  And other benefits too: Disney trying to shirk its royalty paying responsibilities https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25143926 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25143926
marricks 6y ago
That's one way to look at it, but I think the deeper truth is just systems are pretty much always controlled by the powerful and benefit only them. Any new rules will be enforced as such. The HN thread discussing blue state concealed carry laws was very revealing; turns out those laws just lead to pay offs to police departments when some org needs permits. [1] Senators make millions on insider relief package info? Who cares. You challenge the powerful by revealing embarrassing secrets? Enemy of the state, you're gonna lose everything or at the very least many years of your life in legal limbo. The power balance in many cases could be the real issue, everyday people just need to (somehow) get way more empowered. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25193861 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25193861
- wolverine876 6y ago
  > the deeper truth is just systems are pretty much always controlled by the powerful The power of individuals with the right idea to change the world (often running circles around the 'powerful') is the foundation of the technology behind most people's jobs here. How do some people can work in the IT industry and promulgate the parent's fatalistic outlook? Internet Explorer would be the dominant browser, Windows the only operating system, and we'd be discussing it in an MSN forum. If people believed in this outlook, there was would be no democracy, human rights, and rule of law (in countries around the world), everything would be corrupt and would be the same everywhere, women and minorities would have made no progress, etc. To say it has no effect and nobody cares is edgy and cool these days, but obviously wrong. If your predecessors believed that, I can't imagine how our lives would be now. The fact is that individuals and groups of individuals, if they act, can and do change the world - and change their communities. Ask any leader; the problem is not lack of power but lack of action. Corruption will fall or not based on you, personally, on what you do. Look at what prior generations did for us; what are you doing for the people who follow us?
  - marricks 6y ago
    I don't think we actually disagree on a ton, my original comment was extremely vague on which "systems", I meant mainly western governments and mega corps. I don't think this unbalance is baked into humanity, I 100% agree people collectively taking a stand (unions, mass actually effective protests, etc) would lead to far better systems.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
SulfurHexaFluri 6y ago
IMO everyone related to a corporate crime should be responsible. If a company dumps toxic waste in to a river, the person who pressed the dump button, the person who told them to and any management that signed off on the idea should all be personally as responsible as if I just took a bucket and walked down to the local river. Perhaps some exceptions for people who could not be expected to understand the law, for example an untrained retail staff being tricked in to violating laws usually only understood by management or legal teams.
- Escapado 6y ago
  And with (financial) protection for those who refuse to partake and report the crime. I guess the person pressing the dump button would usually make just above minimum wage and would be considered unimportant enough to fire if he stood up for what's right so there is no incentive except for a moral one which I would argue is not enough for most people.
  - Spivak 6y ago
    As much as the liberal-libertarian crowd on HN likes to be vocal against most forms of government licensure, protection from ethical breaches like this is one of the best things about them. You can tell your employer to pound sand because neither you nor anyone they could replace you with will be willing to risk their license to do something unethical. And even if they could find someone sketch to try and push it through you’re protected by your professional review board.
    - hurt_and_afraid 6y ago
      I really love this term you've used: 'liberal-libertarian'. It succintly sums up the odd attitudes held by so many posters who barrack so strongly for near-radical left-wing views, and then balk at the idea of holding corporations even remotely responsible for their actions.
    - bitcharmer 6y ago
      I'm not leftist and I haven't observed any strong bias here. HN crowd is leftist only by US standards but then US is a country where most people think public health care is communism.
cortesoft 6y ago
It is all about resources.... a person who has the resources to defend themselves like a corporation will probably get the same punishment.
bdowling 6y ago
> ... but criminally don't face anywhere near the same levels of punishment. We generally do not punish corporations harshly for criminal wrongdoing because (1) punishing the corporation mostly harms the shareholders, who aren't responsible because they only have indirect control over the corporation, and (2) the individual employees who commit crimes face criminal prosecution and punishment. [Edit] I regret that my comment was taken as one endorsing corporations or their shareholders profiting from crimes. That was not my intent.
- gowld 6y ago
  > punishing the corporation mostly harms the shareholders, who aren't responsible because they only have indirect control over the corporation Then why should shareholders get the profits from the work they don't comtrol? > the individual employees who commit crimes face criminal prosecution and punishment. Do they?
  - bdowling 6y ago
    > Then why should shareholders get the profits from the work they don't comtrol? Because they invested money into the corporation when the corporation issued stock.
    - postnihilism 6y ago
      And when that company commits a crime, it should be punished and its stock should lose value. It seems like you're arguing that shareholders should reap rewards for actions that a company takes but be shielded from negative financial repercussions that result from criminal actions it takes. This creates a moral hazard similar to to the "too big to fail" situation of banks. It incentivizes risky and potentially criminal behavior because ownership is able to capture the value of any upside and is shielded from the downsides of the behavior.
      - bdowling 6y ago
        > And when that company commits a crime, it should be punished and its stock should lose value. I agree. That is part of the risk investors take.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
meigwilym 6y ago
Punish the shareholders too. Companies would soon find themselves ethical.

It is one of the great imbalances in the justice system where technically corporations are people, but criminally don't face anywhere near the same levels of punishment.

spoonjim 6y ago

Individuals are frequently given “life without parole,” which effectively erases them, but corporations almost never get this.

ljm 6y ago

They get all of the benefits of personhood but literally none of the drawbacks.

NegativeLatency 6y ago
And other benefits too: Disney trying to shirk its royalty paying responsibilities https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25143926 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25143926

marricks 6y ago

That's one way to look at it, but I think the deeper truth is just systems are pretty much always controlled by the powerful and benefit only them. Any new rules will be enforced as such. The HN thread discussing blue state concealed carry laws was very revealing; turns out those laws just lead to pay offs to police departments when some org needs permits. [1] Senators make millions on insider relief package info? Who cares. You challenge the powerful by revealing embarrassing secrets? Enemy of the state, you're gonna lose everything or at the very least many years of your life in legal limbo. The power balance in many cases could be the real issue, everyday people just need to (somehow) get way more empowered. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25193861 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25193861

wolverine876 6y ago
> the deeper truth is just systems are pretty much always controlled by the powerful The power of individuals with the right idea to change the world (often running circles around the 'powerful') is the foundation of the technology behind most people's jobs here. How do some people can work in the IT industry and promulgate the parent's fatalistic outlook? Internet Explorer would be the dominant browser, Windows the only operating system, and we'd be discussing it in an MSN forum. If people believed in this outlook, there was would be no democracy, human rights, and rule of law (in countries around the world), everything would be corrupt and would be the same everywhere, women and minorities would have made no progress, etc. To say it has no effect and nobody cares is edgy and cool these days, but obviously wrong. If your predecessors believed that, I can't imagine how our lives would be now. The fact is that individuals and groups of individuals, if they act, can and do change the world - and change their communities. Ask any leader; the problem is not lack of power but lack of action. Corruption will fall or not based on you, personally, on what you do. Look at what prior generations did for us; what are you doing for the people who follow us?
- marricks 6y ago
  I don't think we actually disagree on a ton, my original comment was extremely vague on which "systems", I meant mainly western governments and mega corps. I don't think this unbalance is baked into humanity, I 100% agree people collectively taking a stand (unions, mass actually effective protests, etc) would lead to far better systems.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

SulfurHexaFluri 6y ago

IMO everyone related to a corporate crime should be responsible. If a company dumps toxic waste in to a river, the person who pressed the dump button, the person who told them to and any management that signed off on the idea should all be personally as responsible as if I just took a bucket and walked down to the local river. Perhaps some exceptions for people who could not be expected to understand the law, for example an untrained retail staff being tricked in to violating laws usually only understood by management or legal teams.

Escapado 6y ago
And with (financial) protection for those who refuse to partake and report the crime. I guess the person pressing the dump button would usually make just above minimum wage and would be considered unimportant enough to fire if he stood up for what's right so there is no incentive except for a moral one which I would argue is not enough for most people.
- Spivak 6y ago
  As much as the liberal-libertarian crowd on HN likes to be vocal against most forms of government licensure, protection from ethical breaches like this is one of the best things about them. You can tell your employer to pound sand because neither you nor anyone they could replace you with will be willing to risk their license to do something unethical. And even if they could find someone sketch to try and push it through you’re protected by your professional review board.
  - hurt_and_afraid 6y ago
    I really love this term you've used: 'liberal-libertarian'. It succintly sums up the odd attitudes held by so many posters who barrack so strongly for near-radical left-wing views, and then balk at the idea of holding corporations even remotely responsible for their actions.
  - bitcharmer 6y ago
    I'm not leftist and I haven't observed any strong bias here. HN crowd is leftist only by US standards but then US is a country where most people think public health care is communism.

cortesoft 6y ago

It is all about resources.... a person who has the resources to defend themselves like a corporation will probably get the same punishment.

bdowling 6y ago

> ... but criminally don't face anywhere near the same levels of punishment. We generally do not punish corporations harshly for criminal wrongdoing because (1) punishing the corporation mostly harms the shareholders, who aren't responsible because they only have indirect control over the corporation, and (2) the individual employees who commit crimes face criminal prosecution and punishment. [Edit] I regret that my comment was taken as one endorsing corporations or their shareholders profiting from crimes. That was not my intent.

gowld 6y ago
> punishing the corporation mostly harms the shareholders, who aren't responsible because they only have indirect control over the corporation Then why should shareholders get the profits from the work they don't comtrol? > the individual employees who commit crimes face criminal prosecution and punishment. Do they?
- bdowling 6y ago
  > Then why should shareholders get the profits from the work they don't comtrol? Because they invested money into the corporation when the corporation issued stock.
  - postnihilism 6y ago
    And when that company commits a crime, it should be punished and its stock should lose value. It seems like you're arguing that shareholders should reap rewards for actions that a company takes but be shielded from negative financial repercussions that result from criminal actions it takes. This creates a moral hazard similar to to the "too big to fail" situation of banks. It incentivizes risky and potentially criminal behavior because ownership is able to capture the value of any upside and is shielded from the downsides of the behavior.
    - bdowling 6y ago
      > And when that company commits a crime, it should be punished and its stock should lose value. I agree. That is part of the risk investors take.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

meigwilym 6y ago

Punish the shareholders too. Companies would soon find themselves ethical.