I'm curious if you'll indulge a hypothetical. Imagine executives could be held responsible for deaths proven to be reasonable caused by their actions (or inacti

I'm curious if you'll indulge a hypothetical. Imagine executives could be held responsible for deaths proven to be reasonable caused by their actions (or inactions) with penalties comparable to normal penalties for murder/manslaughter. And now this man was found responsible for a countless number of deaths, and thus himself sentenced to death, or lifetime solitary confinement if you happen to unconditionally oppose the death penalty. Would your view change? I assume the answer is yes, but I'm sure you see the issue with letting laws define one's own personal code. This isn't a 'gotcha' or anything. I myself have lots of cognitive dissonance on this issue, and am just genuinely curious what your take would be.