Should we extend the 3 strikes law to corporations?

[Sava]

I'm confused... I thought this thread was all about prosecuting the evil-doers.

[Arrian]

I think the main problem is lack of enforcement of existing laws. That is often the case.

-Arrian

[Sava]

If this law gets more evil-doers prosecuted, then I'm for it.

As I said before though, I'm against the 3 strikes law. But if applies to everyone else, it should apply to corporate scumbags.

[Arrian]

That's the problem, though, Sava. Who are the scumbags? The individual people doing the evil, if you will. Well, what if they do their evil thing - twice - and then leave the company (with a nice golden parachute). The new management is up to 2 strikes from the get-go.

Corporate succession gets really, really complicated. Trust me, I know. I work for an insurance company, handling long-tail environmental claims (stuff that goes back decades). Our original policyholder is often not the entity that comes to us claiming coverage. It's often the company that bought the company that bought the company that changed its name twice after having bought most of our old policyholder, which was merged into the new entity and thus no longer exists.

Can a law like this deal with that?

-Arrian

[Sava]

Then I have misunderstood the proposed law.

[Arrian]

Under draft laws currently making their way through the state legislature, companies convicted of three felonies within a ten year period would be banned from doing business in California.

*snip*

On the third strike

As an example of how the legislation would work today, the Senator's office said each conviction for fraud against the likes of Arthur Andersen in courts outside of California would count as a strike against the company.

*snip*

-Arrian

[Dinner]

There is also the issue of what to do with the company assits of firms who get banned. Does the firm just hold a fire sale or perhaphes they open a "new" company with a slightly different name and then just continue business as usual.