4 ms·
Should the death penalty be on the table for executives in particularly egregious acts of pollution? Environmental destruction irreparably harms public commons
by cwkoss 5y ago
Should the death penalty be on the table for executives in particularly egregious acts of pollution? Environmental destruction irreparably harms public commons, including the lives of millions of future humans.
These people are making millions and it doesn't seem like current enforcement has the desired deterrent effect. Slaps on the wrist with small fines don't seem effective. How often do executives get prison time for serious pollution?
Is there a fair legal test that you believe would justify the death penalty for egregious acts of pollution where an executive knowingly participated in the cover up? Currently it feels like the commons is being exploited without consequence. I can't help but think that executing just a couple of the worst offenders would make violators much more cautious and curtail this destructive behavior.
- gruez 5y ago>Should the death penalty be on the table for executives in particularly egregious acts of pollution because that worked so well to deter murderers? >These people are making millions and it doesn't seem like current enforcement has the desired deterrent effect. Slaps on the wrist with small fines don't seem effective. I don't understand why the logical progression from "small fines" is "death penalty".
- cwkoss 5y agoPolluters can make hundreds or thousands of people get sick or die due to cancers, respiratory illnesses, etc as well as making species go extinct. That seems worse to me than even the worst mass shooters, but there doesn't seem to be proportional prosecution of these crimes.
- oblib 5y agoI think as long as we have a death penalty than, yes, it should be on the table. Some of the comments on your question offer compelling reason for that to be the case.