4 ms·

This was a criminal conviction. It says so in the article. Are you commenting on the disparate sentencing for the company versus an individual? It is a deferr

by sunir 6y ago

This was a criminal conviction. It says so in the article. Are you commenting on the disparate sentencing for the company versus an individual? It is a deferred prosecution agreement, which is definitely an aspect of corporatism: that is the pre -eminent rights of corporations over natural people. However there was a criminal conviction of a natural person as well. The DPP was the criminal conviction of the corporation that benefited from the underlying crime. DPPs exist to avoid collateral damage to innocents dependent on the corporation, whilst still criminally convicting the corporation itself. It’s a balancing game. With it a bit nuanced I am curious to understand better what you meant by your comment.

harry8 6y ago
Looks to me like the person who holds the job title CEO has engaged in a criminal conspiracy. For profit. Is that really not how it looks to you? Has the CEO been charged? How bad does the crime have to be before the CEO being involved in it before it happened, or becoming aware and profiting from it after without informing the police before the CEO is themselves charged for the CEO's criminal behaviour in engaging in a criminal conspiracy with respect to that crime. I'm hoping if the crime was murder, conspiring by the CEO would result in charges. Yes? What level of crime is sheielded? Should any crime be sheielded like this?
- sunir 6y ago
  I’m not a criminal prosecutor or lawyer nor do I live in the jurisdiction this was tried under. However, I would wager that the CEO would have to have intentionally and actively cooperated with the criminal act; merely benefiting from it indirectly by running the corporation is insufficient. Hence they indicted the corporation which is directly benefiting. Even if the CEO was aware and conspiring the prosecutor would still need to prove it. They may not have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. All that being said it is possible prosecution was pro-corporate biased and refused to burn down a company. I am not discounting that possibility. Regardless it is difficult to win convictions so it is also plausible this is the best win prosecution believed it could get.

by sunir 6y ago

harry8 6y ago

Looks to me like the person who holds the job title CEO has engaged in a criminal conspiracy. For profit. Is that really not how it looks to you? Has the CEO been charged? How bad does the crime have to be before the CEO being involved in it before it happened, or becoming aware and profiting from it after without informing the police before the CEO is themselves charged for the CEO's criminal behaviour in engaging in a criminal conspiracy with respect to that crime. I'm hoping if the crime was murder, conspiring by the CEO would result in charges. Yes? What level of crime is sheielded? Should any crime be sheielded like this?

sunir 6y ago
I’m not a criminal prosecutor or lawyer nor do I live in the jurisdiction this was tried under. However, I would wager that the CEO would have to have intentionally and actively cooperated with the criminal act; merely benefiting from it indirectly by running the corporation is insufficient. Hence they indicted the corporation which is directly benefiting. Even if the CEO was aware and conspiring the prosecutor would still need to prove it. They may not have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. All that being said it is possible prosecution was pro-corporate biased and refused to burn down a company. I am not discounting that possibility. Regardless it is difficult to win convictions so it is also plausible this is the best win prosecution believed it could get.