Sending Corporate Criminals To Jail For 20-30 Years?

[jyl]

Are executives ever held criminally responsible for their actions?

This company head has been sentenced to 28 years jail. Another executive at the company faces a likely 20 year sentence. A lower level employee faces a likely 8-10 year sentence.

The crime involved a long term practice of deliberately shipping peanuts known to be contaminated with salmonella and produced in grossly unsanitary conditions, which finally restored in an outbreak, 9 deaths, and a recall of all production since 2007.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/a-life-sentence-for-shipping-tainted-peanuts-victims-families-say-yes/2015/09/19/e844a314-5bf1-11e5-8e9e-dce8a2a2a679_story.html

I don't really care about this peanut seller. Here is my real question: should we demand severe jail sentences like this for more corporate crimes? How to decide when you just get sued and face bankruptcy, and when you go to jail for 20-30 years?. Should we require a certain number of deaths, or should we jail people who cause financial harm (e.g. subprime crisis) or environmental damage (e.g. toxic waste dumping). Should we require many years of deliberate illegal actions, or would one intentional crime be enough?

[Evans, Marv]

In my opinion, all of those are crimes that should involve punishment just like any other crimes that result in death or injury - physical, mental, financial, etc. If any person off the street knowingly fed another person tainted peanuts or anything else that resulted in death or injury, he/she/they would be prosecuted. I could never understand why actions by people (the white collar ones) are never held responsible just like other criminals. Maybe corporate money just buys better attorneys and influence.

[RF5BPilot]

There certainly have been a lot more automotive recalls since the gov announced that individual employees could be held criminally liable.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by jyl

Here is my real question: should we demand severe jail sentences like this for more corporate crimes? How to decide when you just get sued and face bankruptcy, and when you go to jail for 20-30 years?. Should we require a certain number of deaths, or should we jail people who cause financial harm (e.g. subprime crisis) or environmental damage (e.g. toxic waste dumping). Should we require many years of deliberate illegal actions, or would one intentional crime be enough?

One crime should be enough to land you in jail. If it's a crime, you should be punished. Unfortunately, there is a lot of money in it for the government to negotiate a fine with a corporation and a lot of expense to put a criminal up in jail. We let corporations pay a price for an employee's criminal behavior because that's where the money is.

[Evans, Marv]

But have any actually been held liable up to this point? All of those killed or injured by GM's faulty ignition switches that were covered up for years for instance. I don't recall anyone being held responsible or prosecuted. Although they are in Germany, will any of those who designed and authorized VW's recent software install to avoid vehicle emissions detection face any prosecution? Bet not. Seems like the government is more interested in raking in money from fines than recognizing it and prosecuting it like the crime(s) it is.

[Bugsinrugs]

When an individual makes a decision to care more about profits than people's lives then they should do serious jail time. My opinion anyways.

[GH85Carrera]

Originally Posted by Bugsinrugs

When an individual makes a decision to care more about profits than people's lives then they should do serious jail time. My opinion anyways.

Yea, when customers are physically harmed and some are killed because of deliberate actions of the company, send them to prison for long term real jail, not federal minimum security.

The people in charge at the compounding place that had contaminated products need to spend hard time in real prison. The peanut guy in the OP needs HARD time.

It is different than someone making a product that injures a customer when used wrong. When the customer tries to trim his hedge with a lawnmower or chainsaw, throw the lawyer that took the case in jail.

[stomachmonkey]

I think it's 1,000% correct.

People died.

As noted, when you put profit before lives then you deserve serious jail time.

[nota]

should killing for greed be worse then killing for passion ?

economic terrorist actions in action
killing random people
for profits

[Macroni]

Responsibility is a B_tch.......

[GWN7]

He was directly responsible for 9 deaths. The same as if he took a gun and shot 9 people at random. I think he got off too easy. Nine life sentences of 28 years each would have been better.
The 9 wrongful death suits and the class action suits from everyone who got sick will take care of any money he or the company has.

[TheMentat]

It's interesting...

The approach generally is to go after the company (thereby punishing the shareholders). Unfortunately, shareholders in aggregate don't seem to have the will or ability to compel or enforce good behaviour (especially at the expense of profits). Shareholders' limited liability probably only exacerbates the problem!

Going after actual decision makers would obviously be a much better deterrent for this sort of thing IMO. If we really wanted to get tough, we wouldn't even name the corporation in court... Shareholders would throw the accused under the bus and leave them to defend themselves! Unfortunately, there's not much money in going that route...

[PetrolBlueSC]

I agree with sending these folks to jail for deliberately sending contaminated food to consumers. But what about Wall Street Executives? While linking them directly to a death may be difficult, their actions have caused great economic damage. When will they be convicted for their actions.

[tabs]

Why yes Corporate Executive should be prosecuted, convicted and sent to prison for malfeasance. Corporations are just an excuse to steal and rob everyday.

If corporate campaign money has First Amendment Rights the same as a person then they should have to suffer the same fate as a person who commits a crime. There are a lot of corporations that deserve the death penalty for their irresponsible actions.

BTW this is not a Progressive or Socialist stance but merely a moral and ethical stance.

[Cajundaddy]

People die all the time because bad stuff happens, accidents happen and often this is not a crime.

Willfully and knowingly causing someones death from poisoning, tainted food etc is certainly a violent crime that should include jail time. Personal responsibility matters.

White collar crime including embezzlement, tax evasion, market manipulation that does not result in injury or death but robs many of their assets or income should be handled differently than violent crimes resulting in death IMO. Certainly it is still a crime but not a violent one.

[BE911SC]

Originally Posted by jyl

Are executives ever held criminally responsible for their actions?

Weak ones are. If you have enough power you are not.

[scottmandue]

Yes, they should be punished.
However they are for the most part very well educated and to defray the cost of incarceration why not have them work in a cubical crunching numbers during the day and then have them go to a cell in the evening?

[gacook]

I am in a management position within the government. If I break the law, you can bet your ass I'm going to jail. Why should someone in a "management position" within the corporate world be treated any differently?

[john70t]

CEO Kimdotcom got his personal home raided with helicopters and SWAT teams: Kim Dotcom mansion raid was legal, NZ court rules - BBC News
(mixed feeling about this)

No actual deaths of real people were involved.

The claim was based mostly on suspected storage/sharing of electronic information which could not be 'monitored'.
Theoretical corporate loss of profits in another country were claimed.

[TheMentat]

Originally Posted by john70t

CEO Kimdotcom got his personal home raided with helicopters and SWAT teams: Kim Dotcom mansion raid was legal, NZ court rules - BBC News
(mixed feeling about this)

No actual deaths of real people were involved.

The claim was based mostly on suspected storage/sharing of electronic information which could not be 'monitored'.
Theoretical corporate loss of profits in another country were claimed.

That a whole different matter...

If you're a small time Corporate CEO, and piss off the big boys, you're gonna reap the whirlwind!