3 ms·
Purdue, the company, has pleaded guilty to two crimes. Presumably there is plenty of evidence of criminal activity. The question is whether and to what extent
by elliekelly 5y ago
Purdue, the company, has pleaded guilty to two crimes. Presumably there is plenty of evidence of criminal activity. The question is whether and to what extent the family members, as individuals, might be criminally (or civilly) responsible.
- gruez 5y ago>Purdue, the company, has pleaded guilty to two crimes. Presumably there is plenty of evidence of criminal activity. It's much easier to convict the corporation than its members.
- alistairSH 5y agoWhich is the root of the problem. The Sacklers get throw the company under the bus and walk away with billions in ill-gotten gains. A company shouldn’t be capable of committing crimes - there has to be at least one person who caused the company to do illegal things.
- gruez 5y ago>there has to be at least one person who caused the company to do illegal things. People do get convicted of misconduct at a corporation. It's just that in some (most?) instances, the criminality is so diffuse that you can't convict anyone of anything, so you end up convicting the corporation instead.
- biaachmonkie 5y agoSo then everyone should be convicted/sentenced to prison for the crimes of the corporation they are a part of in proportion to their ownership and/or control over the corporation.