Originally posted by: Orsorum
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: Craig234
What you fail to grasp is that a corporation can't be put in jail, a corporation doesn't have to eat so it doesn't matter if it goes broke, if the owners don't.
But the people who run them can go to jail. Skilling, Waksal, the Rigas family, Kozlowski, Ebbers, etc, etc, etc...
People are held accountable for the actions of the corporation. This notion that corps and the people who run them are above the law is stupid. The corps themselves can he fined, forced to pay restitution and restricted from certain activites as well. You can't put an artificial person in jail but that doesn't mean you can't punish them.
It's not just stupid, it's flat out ignorant. There are numerous mechanisms for controlling corporate behavior, both with punishment meted out to the legal entity itself and to those management and BOD personnel who are responsible for the behavior. In addition, management, directors, and shareholders can be held responsible financially if their actions give cause to pierce the corporate veil.
If by "flat out ignorant", you mean true and important, you are right. You are the one with the ignorance as displayed in your lack of reading comprehension.
Your response argues that there are *some* measures available, and *some* access to jail for management.
Had you read my post and not misread it, you would see that you don't contradict it, that it doesn't say what you claim it says: it leaves *some* punishments, *some* jail for management. What it actually discusses is the issue of *reduced* accountability, how the idea of a corporation as a person is absurd, including the fact that a real person can be put in jail for wrongdoing while a corporation can't; if the threat of jail had a 100% carryover from the corporation to its management, ok, but it doesn't, it's reduced.
This is why you see again and again corporations convicted of felonies while no real person has any felony conviction on their record as a result.
Once again in this thread, as usual the liberals supply the water to the right-wing, and the right-wing pees in it instead of drinking.
Fern:
I thought you libs didn't like the idea of putting people in jail anyway?
While I think that jails are overused and I'd like to see improved options, including better rehabilitation, I'm sure as hell not iin favor of just getting rid of jails now.
The facts that there is now a big profit motive in jails for the jailers who charge the taxpayers and lobby for more prisoners, and that the public has a foolishly shortsighed view in how to run jails on the 'penny wise pound foolish' basis without almost any rehabilitation, don't mean that I want someone who rapes, robs, kills, etc. to be given a note saying not to do it again and let go. We need deterrents - and we also need drug treatment, job training, and other rehabilitative measures.
You then went on to confuse what I actually said about the origin of corporate PERSONHOOD, with corporate CHARTERS:
So, corporations were intially authorized by US law then State law.
Yes, while the nature of corporations has changed hugely in the last 125 years than before that time, corporations themselves have long been legally established, since Queen Victoria made the first global corporation, the source of our primary cause for the revolution, the East India Trading Company (and did things that'd make today's liberals howl - imagine if the Bush administration officials were the primary owners of the biggest corporations and passing tax laws that exempted their corporations).
My comments were about the history of the legal status of corporations as persons - the book I named explains this very well, and I'd ask you to read it.
Facebook
Twitter