Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The death penalty and 25 yrs to life...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
catnhatnh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 07:21 PM
Original message
The death penalty and 25 yrs to life...
Edited on Wed Feb-22-06 07:23 PM by catnhatnh
Those are two sentences that need to be enhanced and brought to the public arena.Any corporation caught in a public corruption case should face the death penalty (ie:Ford over the pinto or United Carbide over Bhopal) and executives guiding those corporations or any elected politician convicted of malfeasance should face 25 years to life...the corporation should be forced to sell off it's divisions and FIRE all management personnel and the crooked politician should damn well KNOW the cost of crookedness....there are those that will say 25 to life is an unfair sentence for someone convicted of no more than fixing parking tickets-to that I say,look at the three strikes law or draconian regulations regarding marijuana...and then ask which more damages our society???We need to get serious about rogue corporations and criminal politicians-Take THAT to your elected representatives and ask them if they can not support it-why can't they??:?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 07:39 PM
Response to Original message
1. You're talking about abolishing corporate personhood.
Edited on Wed Feb-22-06 07:45 PM by kgfnally
It needs to go a great deal farther than what you outlined.

For one thing, corporations need to be stripped of rights. They deserve none. They are not human; they do not in any way contribute to society even what the homeless "street bum" does. They exist solely and inarguably for the purpose of making money for themselves, first and foremost. ANY "public responsibility" is secondary and treated, usually, as a distasteful cost of doing business. Note, corporations' own employees are placed in the same category.

Corporate profits should exist only after corporate employees get paid a living wage for their area, full health, dental, and optical care, retirement plan, sick leave, AND vacation time. Anything less should be grounds for a revocation of the corporate charter. FURTHERMORE, each and every board member should be personally, jointly, and severally responsible for the corporation's misdeed; a criminal violation, for example, on the part of the CEO should be treated as if it were a criminal violation of the entire board.

Yes, this will keep people from serving as CEOs and on boards of directors. THAT'S THE POINT. We need to make these no more, forever, golden jobs. We need to abolish the enticement of such jobs, and the only way possible to do that is NOT by removing the pay and the perks but by INCREASING the responsibility involved to the point that ONLY a sane, ethical, moral businessman will take the job. Nothing less is acceptable, and the path to it is (by today's standards) absolutely insane levels of regulation.

Even further: no corporation should be legally allowed to spend more on a civil suit against a noncorporate defendant than that defendant has in his or her possession- meaning, if you are sued by a corporation, they cannot spend more on their lawyers than you can on yours. FURTHER, no officer of a corporation should be allowed to PRIVATELY sue an individual who is OR COULD BE construed to be a target of a civil suit by the corporation to which that board member or corporate officer provides service.

All "rights" of corporations should be revoked and replaced with strictly conditional privileges. Violations of these privileges should result in AT LEAST a suspension of the corporate charter (which, logically, would mean a suspension of operations for the term of the suspension). And FINALLY, ANY death resulting from negligence, intent, or financial motive (As defined by a jury at trial) should result in death to the corporate CEO and/or the board as a whole. Yes, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM should be held to be at fault.

I am extreme on this issue. The problem is, ONLY an extreme solution will solve this problem, and the ONLY acceptable solution in our civil society is EXTREME RESPONSIBILITY.

In short, I want corporate officers to be responsible for their corporations' activities in the most extreme and literal way possible. I want to erase the legal corporate shield that this mechanism provides for the very very very very very rich, and thereby level the playing field so that THEIR lives are in danger for their misdeeds, AS OURS ARE.

edited to add: in a recent situation, SONY was found to have been installing spyware on users' PCs when they played those CDs on their PCs. Declining the license agreement apparently scrambles all songs in the itunes library; Sony's application also installs as a rootkit, meaning the PC user doesn't know it's there. This would be an example of what I would, under MY scheme of reality, a "litigatory annullment", meaning, Sony wouldn't be able to sue for copyright infringement for x days or months.

Ya play the game, ya pay the piper. Sony needs to pay, pay well, and pay for a long, long time for what they did. Abolishing corporate personhood would at least make this a possibility.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Prohibit corporations from owning corporations.
Edited on Wed Feb-22-06 07:51 PM by TahitiNut
Require all common and preferred stock to be in the name of an individual - a human being. Furthemore, impose a 2% national sales tax on the sale of any share of stock and value all stock at market value at the end of the individual's tax year - taxing capital gains (offset by losses) on an annual basis at rates equal to earned income.

These two changes would go a long, long way to curbing abuses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. They would.
And I completely agree with a prohibition upon corporations owning other corporations.

In fact- according to THEIR arguments, that ought to already be the case.

Persons can't own other persons, and if corporations are persons for ANY purpose under the law..............
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
catnhatnh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. There is a need for incorporation...
..though less protections should be involved...a person should be allowed to open a business and perform in a reasonable manner (operating responsably and covered for liability thru insurance)Without risking their home and retirement funds...that said a non-responsive multinational corporation is an abortion and affront to our system...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northzax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 07:43 PM
Response to Original message
2. so, what is a corportate death penalty consist of, exactly?
the confiscation of all assets? a forced bankruptcy fire-sale type idea? a simple recovation of the ability to trade?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Liquidation of all assets to employees before debtors
Edited on Wed Feb-22-06 07:49 PM by kgfnally
with the remainder being the responsibility of the CEO and the board. 70/30 split between the CEO and the board.

YES- I want to make being a CEO much, much less than the rockstar job it is now. CEOs are generally worthless, have little to no understanding of the company, and can go without remorse.

I have never once heard of a useful CEO, and I doubt I ever will. THEY deserve the GREATEST responsibility, being the major breadwinners.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northzax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. what employees?
Edited on Wed Feb-22-06 07:57 PM by northzax
you just said they were going to jail.

say the Pinto case, would that include everyone involved in the Pinto, or just the CEO?

And wouldn't it be a good get rich quick scheme to simply commit corporate malfeasance, since you know the CEO is taking the fall, and you get a share of the company?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
catnhatnh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. It would involve at LEAST the CEO...
and all major corporate officers...then at a lower level every person involved in deciding it was okay for a few people to burn to death...say 50 to 100 people.If you decide it is okay for afew people to burn to death for corporate profit do you think a financial penalty is enough????Do you realize EVEN that didn't happen to those who made the decisions???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
catnhatnh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #2
13. It is whatever it takes...
Once a corporation kills or behave in an anti-social manner there must exist ameans of taking it from society...I can't quantify it but know it is needed...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northzax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. you have to do better than that
I own Apple stock, for instance. But I have nothing to do with governing it. And through various mutual funds, I own quite a few things, I'd suppose, heck, I own SPYDERS, so that's everything on the S&P 500. So I own parts of companies that I have no control over, Through a bond fund, I own the debt of companies I really have no control over.

After the Corporate Death Penalty, do I lose everything? If Apple commits some malfeasance, do I lose my investment completely? does everyone? who own the remaining assets of the company, the patents, the defined benefit pension, the corporate headquarters, the computers in the central office? the paperclips in the supply closet? These are all questions that need to be answered before you can propose a corporate death penalty.

I will support civil and criminal liability for the CEO for anything done by his/her company, but this whole death penalty thing we hear so much about needs to be fleshed out more, in all seriousness.

Ford, for instance, employs 325,000 people directly, and probalby three times that indirectly, what happens to them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
catnhatnh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Yes
You should lose.Why should your money have more rights than other humans have a right to breathe...If a company commits a malfeasence it is done by someone picked by a company you own part of...you have proxies and voting rights,if you choose not to check into what your companies are doing, then buy into mutual funds or take prevailing bank rates (they SUCK don't they???)...In short,your profits over prevailing (miserable) bank rates deserve to provide you with a loss exposure-or do you think you are somehow "special"???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northzax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. I do buy mutual funds
SPYDERS, for instance, are an amalgamation of the entire S&P 500. I should research every company in the index? there are only 500 of them.

what happens to the Ford employees who's company just vanished?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
catnhatnh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Well
when there is true corporate accountability,your fund would never touch them..the fact that you rely on an index of 500 industrials means they should be protected???Do even YOU believe your assertion???I don't care WHAT happens to Ford employees in 1974.....if honestly called to account in 1974 when it was revealed people were burned to death (22 years ago) who knows what may have replaced them???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northzax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. what happens to the corporate assets?
really? Who could replace them, without the infrastructure to build cars? what happens to the people who build Ford automobiles, or the parts for Ford Automobiles? after the death penalty, who owns the assets?

fine, wipe out the stock, but who owns the factories? do we simply shutter them for good? give them to someone else? sell them to someone else? if we sell them, who gets the money? who picks the buyer?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 07:43 PM
Response to Original message
3. The Ford Pinto case is much more complex than all that
Edited on Wed Feb-22-06 07:44 PM by alcibiades_mystery
I know one of the key decision-makers in the Ford Pinto case, and his arguments for the decision-making process at Ford are compelling and quite real. Shouldn't throw that in.

Besides, the lesson of the utterly stupid three-strikes laws is that they should be abolished, not extended. That's hardly a good argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
catnhatnh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. Tell me a compelling reason...
...for a corporation which can not die,to decide it is okay for a number of humans to do so???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. A corporation doesn't make decisions
Humans do.

And in the Ford Pinto case, the humans made decisions based on the best evidence they had at any one time, and the nature of the evidence in the fairly complex context. They made decisions that they thought, at the time, served both the company and a general ethics. They never decided that it was OK for humans to die; rather, they falsely assumed that it wasn't something about the car that was killing them. See, more complicated than all that. I'm sure it's easy for small thinkers to immediately say "You're to blame! I want my revenge!" But when you dig into most things, such thinking is little more than revenge. It is usually not even thought at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
catnhatnh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. Pintos burned to the ground
with people in them at a much greater rate than was "normal".Do not tell me for one instant that Ford had no idea this was the case-we know better-they were the corporation that was caught.Best evidence my fried steaming ass.They assumed that it was something else that was statistically killing more pinto owners than others???What????UFO's??? The Ford Bermuda Triangle???A GM trick???More complicated my ass-people were dying and they analyzed and made their choice...if it were a relative of mine we would not be done yet...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
catnhatnh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 07:57 PM
Response to Original message
8. Every person in this thread deserves a reply...
I will try to reply to as many as possible...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 08:16 PM
Response to Original message
12. The politicians work for the corporations.
They aren't about to cut off the brib..er, campaign funding. But, they do serve the purpose of maintaining the illusion that this is a democracy where ordinary people have a say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC