3 ms·
By doing harm to a company you can still do harm to the owners, employees and clients of that company. You'd only be changing the entities involved in the proce
by devmor 3y ago
By doing harm to a company you can still do harm to the owners, employees and clients of that company. You'd only be changing the entities involved in the process, not the outcome.
- jhrmnn 3y agoTrue. But then why do we almost never hold persons criminally accountable when they do harm through a company they control. Shouldn’t this be reciprocal?
- zdragnar 3y agoA person doesn't control a company like they do a car. Proving criminal liability for an individual requires evidence tied to that individual. Much easier, and a lower bar, to hold the corporate entity liable.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y agoWe could choose to hold executives and/or majority shareholders responsible instead of a "corporate entity".
- devmor 3y agoWe certainly could and I think, given a stringent set of regulations around record keeping of corporate decisions, we should. Passing such a set of laws seems like a pipe dream at best, though.
- Obscurity4340 3y agoWhy should it be any different than for example charging a parent for his negligence in controlling his child?