Do you think VERY VERY VERY harsh penalties will stop corporate offenders?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by MrFun
sure

Isn't it rather obvious? It causes less harm to a far greater number of people.

[MrFun]

The number of victims is irrelevant in this case.

Murder is an irreversible crime -- once the person is dead, there is no compensation for that victim, nor for the surviving family members.

The countless number of people who got a**raped by their greedy executives could be fairly compensated for their loss and suffering if people in the position of responsibility and power have a fair sense of justice.


It's shameful that you put material loss as being more severe than loss of a person's life.

[Kuciwalker]

I was considering the general economic damage that results from massive fraud, as well.

And significant material loss to a large number of people - a single murder is insignificant in comparison. Especially since it's possible that material losses can result in death in a number of ways.

[MrFun]

**** this -- the ghost of Lincoln right now is telling me to finish my research for the day in "his" library.





later . . . . . .

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by MrFun
sure

[Dr Strangelove]

If you impose the DP for major corporate crimes, the next time they'll execute Martha Stewart. Please, for mercy's sake, she's suffered enough.

[Last Conformist]

@Vesayen: Just because someone says that harsher penalties for corporate crimes wouldn't provice effective deterence doesn't mean they think the punishments shouldn't be increased.

[BlackCat]

What about corrupt civil servants ? Shouldn't there be a "very" added ?

[JohnT]

Spiffor, we do not have harsh enough punishments for corporate offenders-if Ken Lay is like most of our corporate offenders there will be a long protracted trial(or an unbelivably quick one) with a sentence FARRRR too light, then the sentence will be commuted.

That isn't at all true.

In my readings of various corporate crimes, national or international, one thing is clear: If you have the option, you don't commit crimes within the United States. Why? Because we're the only country that's serious about prosecuting them:

Sitting on the bed, Whitacre dialed the number for Kanji Mimoto at Ajinomoto. He had rehearsed the conversation several times and was ready to suggest the Hawaii proposal. The recording device was hooked up to the phone.

...

"Since you guys hosted the Vancouver meeting, I think ADM should host the next meeting, don't you?"
"Yeah", Mimoto said. "That's fine."
"And maybe we should host it in, uh, Maui."
"Maui?"
"You know, have the group meeting like we had the last time in Vancouver. Have it in Maui, Hawaii."
"Maui, Hawaii, is, uh, still in the United States," Mimoto said warily.
Whitacre had been told to push Mimoto if he objected, to force him to explain why he didn't want to meet on American territory. He glanced at (FBI agent Brian) Shepard.
"Yeah, but what does that mean? 'Still in the United States'?"
"Well," Mimoto said, "still in the United States means, uh, United States is, ah, very severe for the control of antitrust activity, no?"
Whitacres eyes lit up. That statement was going to be almost impossible to explain away.

In the investigation of a price-fixing scandal involving the globe's largest food producers, a scandal that touches billions of people, the fixers knew to stay away from the US - the breaking of this rule was what brought them down.

The interesting thing was the lack of support we received from our allies. While the Canadians allowed (and even assisted) the tailing of the various execs in public places, they would not allow the taping or recording of discussions that occurred in private. France was even worse: Even after a call from Louis Freeh, head of the FBI, pleading for assistance, the French forbade any investigation of the price fixers on French soil and refused to assist using their own resources - the fact that one of the, if not the key meeting, to fix prices occurred in Paris the French deemed irrelevant - worse, an embarrassment since one of the fixers was French company Eurolysine (since bought out by the above-mentioned Ajinomoto.) Same thing happened in Switzerland and Germany.

The point is, compared to the rest of the industrialized world, especially those countries in Europe, the US is serious about enforcing our commerce laws. The heads of the worlds most corrupt companies know it, the Feds know it... y'all should too.

[Vesayen]

You assume I am recommending the death penalty and unreasonable torture because corporate fraud ala enron is a worse crime.

It IS a worse crime... it does not take away a life but it causes life ruining harm for thousands.... every employee of enron with a 401k or a pension-gone. So there are 25k people whose financial lives have been ruined..... toss in all the stock investers, the economic damage to the country..... it is a far more damaging crime in terms of overall damage then any sociopath.

Kuci has it spot on... I assumed this was obvious but it is not apparently. Think about it. What is more harmfull, a few hundred murders over the course of a year-of people who are in reality, not very important, or economic fraud from the worlds largest energy company, the lives of tens of thousands of people being ruined, thousands more becoming penniless, tens of billions of dollars of economic dollars.... the answer is obvious.

Our society DOES set a monetary value on human life, that is how drugs get aprooved for retail sale-when they are made safe enough that the manufacturer finds the drug is more profitable then the average lawsuit, it goes on sale.... and the feds let them, knowing this. They allow drugs that WILL kill a small number of people to go on the market because it will help many more.

HOWEVER I do not ask for unreasonably cruel punishments because it is a worse crime. This is not about vengance or retribution or "justice". The crime of the Enron executives has caused TREMENDOUS harm.

Whether someone thinks they will be caught or not, we need to set the penalty to unreasonably, so cruely, so UNBELIVABLY high that no one even contemplates commiting the crime. It is precisley because those who commit this fraud think they can get away with it-and they likley will, that we need to set the penalty so rediculously high. We need to set it so high that people who don't think they can possibly get caught, will not do it for the slim chance that it could.

If you are already a wealthy and powerfull individual, will you risk prolonged, barbaric, inhuman torture followed by execution for MORE money? Of course not. Executives are not stupid and they got to their position by knowing how to balance risk and reward. We need to set the risk so high no one will possibly take it.



JohnT, we may be "more serious" but we are still far too lax in enforcment. Anyone who says otherwise is closing their eyes. How many special favors has congress given to individual companies who make large contributions? How many bills have been signed SPECIFICALLY for one company or for a small group? How many times have corporate offenders gotten off with a minimal fine and kept their ill gotten gains?

[MrFun]

I understand your argument Vesayen, and it still stinks like bullsh*t.

[JohnT]

Kuci has it spot on... I assumed this was obvious but it is not apparently. Think about it. What is more harmfull, a few hundred murders over the course of a year-of people who are in reality, not very important, or economic fraud from the worlds largest energy company, the lives of tens of thousands of people being ruined, thousands more becoming penniless, tens of billions of dollars of economic dollars.... the answer is obvious.

Our society DOES set a monetary value on human life, that is how drugs get aprooved for retail sale-when they are made safe enough that the manufacturer finds the drug is more profitable then the average lawsuit, it goes on sale.... and the feds let them, knowing this. They allow drugs that WILL kill a small number of people to go on the market because it will help many more.

I've gotta tell you, the number of fallacies you're making are so many I'm pretty sure that you know little about the actual situation in re: to Enron.

Enron was never the "worlds largest energy company" nor the tenth nor the 40th.

The ruined lives are their own. There was plenty of "little people" who knew what was going on... and not a one of them lifted their finger to stop it, to inform anybody, to do anything. Not. A. One.

Nobody forced Enron employees to sink their entire 401(k)'s in Enron stock. Nobody forced Enron employees to become net buyers of Enron stock when the stock price was sinking and the administrative change-over on the 401(k)'s was accelerated to shorten the standard 1-month lockdown to 10-days in November, 2001. Were they bad investors? Sure, but then, judging by the posts I've read here, so are most of the people on Apolyton. Was it their bosses fault that they are bad investors? No more than it is UR's bosses fault that he wanted to short the Dow at the very moment that it began a 2,500 point rebound.

I don't need to comment on the bolded section.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by JohnT
There was plenty of "little people" who knew what was going on... and not a one of them lifted their finger to stop it, to inform anybody, to do anything. Not. A. One.

That's because they were afraid of their own well-being by blowing the whistle.


In other words, of retribution by the higher-up executives.

[Vesayen]

Our society decides that some peoples lives are more important then others, every day. It is not right or wrong but it is reality.

[MrFun]

I didn't come on here tonight because I wanted to get a headache from Vesayen or JohnT.