Executives will be more afraid of being sent to prison for criminal charges, than having someone else's money get spent on fines. We can do both - increase the fines and set a precedent of arresting executives when their company does criminal things.
replyIn a large enough organization with many layers to it, it very well may be that executives were neither involved nor aware of criminal wrongdoing, and even when they are, you'll never find sufficient evidence to charge them. That's largely the point behind performing criminal acts as a business and why there's so much white-collar crime.
replyAt least if you set fines to a level that such crimes are rarely if ever profitable, you can both remove the incentive for the organization to commit them as well as introduce a passive internal mechanism to prevent them in the first place.
sure, prison time for some criminal stuff is cool too.
replyi am more pushing back against the call for corporal punishment like caning
What if I told you that prison is also corporal punishment?
replyi tried to be more specific with the “like caning” part
replyI have no moral objection, but it would just change the composition of CEOs as a group. Instead of just selecting for sociopaths, we'd start selecting for sociopaths with high pain tolerance.
replyIn any other crime you get caught doing you do not get the benefits of the ill gotten gains. why should this be any different?
replyi am saying the fine should exceed the ill gotten gains. so, they would not get the benefits
replyIn theory there will be some class action lawsuits that will come about from this now that this report is public. Those can get very expensive.
reply> the problem would be solved, right?
replyCorporal punishment is laughable outright, but that's masking the issue. Punishing corporations does not discourage the participants directly. The behavior will not change.