8 ms·

You can jail CEO just fine if you prove they personally committed the crime beyond reasonable doubt. Proving that is hard, of course. Sometimes impossible becau

by smsm42 27d ago

You can jail CEO just fine if you prove they personally committed the crime beyond reasonable doubt. Proving that is hard, of course. Sometimes impossible because the CEO delegates a lot of what the corporation does. This is common for any big organization or group - be it corporation, political party, gang, army, state, etc. There's no special law or process singling out or protecting CEOs specifically, and no specific US rules for that.

digitaltrees 26d ago
But there are gaps. What CEO is jailed for knowingly leaking forever chemicals or putting lead in gasoline? They are long gone when the harm manifests. My point is the company should face consequences such as loss of the right to operate and perhaps the loss of limited liability so shareholders are personally liable. Limited liability is a privilege not a right. We could require all businesses operate as partnerships rather than corporations or limited liability companies. Lawyers have to operate that way. Bankers did until the 90s. The rationale was that they would be more careful with risk if each partner was personally liable for the debts of their partners actions.
- smsm42 26d ago
  Putting lead in gasoline is not some evil CEO's decision. That was widely accepted industry practice and completely approved by The Science (TM) at the time. If you want to blame a single person, it'd be Thomas Midgley Jr. (incredibly, he's also responsible for CFCs) and was also killed in 1944 by one of his other (non-chemical) invention, so by the time it has become clear TEL is dangerous he was not around anymore to blame. Even when the danger of TEL became known, there was no single "evil CEO" that was responsible for it's continued use - and it took a long time to make it unlawful. Once it was made unlwaful, I don't think there's a CEO on record that had still instructed his employees to use TEL despite what the law requires. So if the narrative is "evil CEOs put lead in gasoline and avoided jail because of US legal system being broken" - this would have very little connection to what actually happened, however tragic it was.
  - digitaltrees 25d ago
    This is not remotely true. It can be traced to exactly one executive who knew the dangers. You yourself cite him. So why minimize that causal relationship? You are literally missing the entire point of my argument. Companies decisions are made by executives. Those executives have a finite life span shorter than the company and often avoid the consequences of their decisions because they don’t materialize so we need some better incentive structure. https://nonprofitnewsfeed.com/resource/the-rise-and-fall-of-leaded-gasoline-an-absurd-true-timeline/ https://nonprofitnewsfeed.com/resource/the-rise-and-fall-of-...
    - smsm42 17d ago
      > It can be traced to exactly one executive who knew the dangers. Who? TEL was in use for 60+ years. You are seriously claiming that one single person had absolute dictatorial powers over whole industry - nay, whole industries in 186 countries! - for 60+ years, not letting people to get rid of obviously poisonous chemical? And he's so powerful he managed to even erase his name and very existence from the public discourse? Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds? > Companies decisions are made by executives. Yes. There were many companies and many executives, and they made decisions based on information available to them, and incentives driving them, and so did the public and the politicians. And unfortunately they were all wrong for over 60 years. That is very sad (though not unique - there are lots of things about which a lot more people are wrong for a lot more time than that) but there's no single evil person to blame for it and attack in a fit of righteous anger. Unfortunately, it's not that easy. > Those executives have a finite life span shorter than the company and often avoid the consequences of their decisions because they don’t materialize so we need some better incentive structure. What, dig them up from the grave, resurrect them and put them into the Torment Nexus, in retribution for something they screwed up in 1920s? Or put their blood relatives into the Torment Nexus instead? I mean, what exactly are you proposing here to be done to change incentive structure so that Thomas Midgley Jr. wouldn't invent TEL?

by smsm42 27d ago

digitaltrees 26d ago

But there are gaps. What CEO is jailed for knowingly leaking forever chemicals or putting lead in gasoline? They are long gone when the harm manifests. My point is the company should face consequences such as loss of the right to operate and perhaps the loss of limited liability so shareholders are personally liable. Limited liability is a privilege not a right. We could require all businesses operate as partnerships rather than corporations or limited liability companies. Lawyers have to operate that way. Bankers did until the 90s. The rationale was that they would be more careful with risk if each partner was personally liable for the debts of their partners actions.

smsm42 26d ago
Putting lead in gasoline is not some evil CEO's decision. That was widely accepted industry practice and completely approved by The Science (TM) at the time. If you want to blame a single person, it'd be Thomas Midgley Jr. (incredibly, he's also responsible for CFCs) and was also killed in 1944 by one of his other (non-chemical) invention, so by the time it has become clear TEL is dangerous he was not around anymore to blame. Even when the danger of TEL became known, there was no single "evil CEO" that was responsible for it's continued use - and it took a long time to make it unlawful. Once it was made unlwaful, I don't think there's a CEO on record that had still instructed his employees to use TEL despite what the law requires. So if the narrative is "evil CEOs put lead in gasoline and avoided jail because of US legal system being broken" - this would have very little connection to what actually happened, however tragic it was.
- digitaltrees 25d ago
  This is not remotely true. It can be traced to exactly one executive who knew the dangers. You yourself cite him. So why minimize that causal relationship? You are literally missing the entire point of my argument. Companies decisions are made by executives. Those executives have a finite life span shorter than the company and often avoid the consequences of their decisions because they don’t materialize so we need some better incentive structure. https://nonprofitnewsfeed.com/resource/the-rise-and-fall-of-leaded-gasoline-an-absurd-true-timeline/ https://nonprofitnewsfeed.com/resource/the-rise-and-fall-of-...
  - smsm42 17d ago
    > It can be traced to exactly one executive who knew the dangers. Who? TEL was in use for 60+ years. You are seriously claiming that one single person had absolute dictatorial powers over whole industry - nay, whole industries in 186 countries! - for 60+ years, not letting people to get rid of obviously poisonous chemical? And he's so powerful he managed to even erase his name and very existence from the public discourse? Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds? > Companies decisions are made by executives. Yes. There were many companies and many executives, and they made decisions based on information available to them, and incentives driving them, and so did the public and the politicians. And unfortunately they were all wrong for over 60 years. That is very sad (though not unique - there are lots of things about which a lot more people are wrong for a lot more time than that) but there's no single evil person to blame for it and attack in a fit of righteous anger. Unfortunately, it's not that easy. > Those executives have a finite life span shorter than the company and often avoid the consequences of their decisions because they don’t materialize so we need some better incentive structure. What, dig them up from the grave, resurrect them and put them into the Torment Nexus, in retribution for something they screwed up in 1920s? Or put their blood relatives into the Torment Nexus instead? I mean, what exactly are you proposing here to be done to change incentive structure so that Thomas Midgley Jr. wouldn't invent TEL?