3 ms·

which is the stronger deterrent, a (large but recoverable) corporate fine or prison time for the decision makers? I'd wager the latter --- the former mainly pun

• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• voxic11 5y ago
  Having a criminal record has other consequences for companies in the US, like being ineligible for most government contracts.
  • watwut 5y ago
    But the managers who caused it are long time gone, they got their pay raises and new jobs. The stocks went up too in the meantime, rewarding those who enabled in the process.
• Sindisil 5y ago
  The proper response would be to prosecute both the corporation and specific individuals who acted illegally. The former as a corrective action to help unwind any advantage gained in the market due to the illegal activity. This means, though, that fines need to actually claw back the ill gotten gains, not the small fraction they represent today. Right now, the fines are just another expense, assuming the company even gets caught. Prosecuting the company properly might also ensure some measure of justice in cases where specific individuals' guilt is obscured by corporate structure and systems (intentionally or otherwise). Prosecuting individuals who break the law in service of their employer (executive or not) isn't much different than prosecuting soldiers who commit war crimes -- obviously different in degree, but not in kind. "I was just following orders" shouldn't be an acceptable defense in either case, though coercion and fear of reprisal should certainly be taken into account.