Objection: Ideas of proportionality and sanctity of life ideas are abstract just fronts for
barbaric and cruel practice of retribution. How do you have proportionality for torture
and sexual assault work? You can’t torture the torturer or burn the arsonist.
Response: No need to focus on literal interpretation of proportionality focus is on
alternative compensation like appropriate imprisonment. For fraud and other less severe
corporate crimes, could focus on alternative compensation and hold officer responsible.
An in-depth analysis of Utilitarianism is beyond the scope of this paper however
utilitarianism focuses on the welfare of society. It is part of a consequentialist approach
that looks at the future consequences of the …show more content…
This restores sense of fairness
and justice in society. Economic penalties fail to serve as an effective deterrence and lead
to loss of faith in criminal justice system.
Objection: Sophisticated investors understand risk of loss is inherent in investing and
have diversified portfolios and don’t put all their eggs in one basket. Unions protect the
job security of lower level employees and many are able to find similar jobs within a
short period of time. This ensures that no innocent party suffers, and the corporation
ultimately gets punished. The argument against punishing Corporate agents is twofold,
corporate agents are acting to promote the interest of the corporation and have no
criminal motive, and second, the decision making process is complicated and spans many
different divisions. It is impossible to hold any one person responsible for the decision of
many and action of others. By focusing on appropriate economic penalties we ensure
prevention of future crime, rehabilitation of corporations and denunciate the crime.
Response:
The graph (refer to index) shows that economic penalties paid by corporations over …show more content…
The first two reasons are beyond scope of this paper.
Many have suggested that both corporations and corporate officers should be held
responsible. This approach would not be justified under retributivist principles because it
again punishes the innocent and lets the guilty walk free. Corporations are artificial
people, they are not capable people with free-will. Corporations don’t have minds, body
and soul; they can’t be imprisoned or rehabilitated. In order to find someone guilty of
criminal liability, you need mens rea, the intention behind the act. Corporations don’t
have intentions, their officers do. Corporations also can’t be held responsible for the
crimes of other people since they have no way of fully controlling each and every one of
their employees. If an employee acts with his freewill against the corporate policy and
negligently harms another person, the Corporation should not face any liability because
that is unjust. Furthermore Corporations don’t have the legal rights other people do to not
incriminate themselves and the right to remain silent. There is no client-solicitor privilege
given to corporations. In a free and fair society, if they are to be held to legal
barbaric and cruel practice of retribution. How do you have proportionality for torture
and sexual assault work? You can’t torture the torturer or burn the arsonist.
Response: No need to focus on literal interpretation of proportionality focus is on
alternative compensation like appropriate imprisonment. For fraud and other less severe
corporate crimes, could focus on alternative compensation and hold officer responsible.
An in-depth analysis of Utilitarianism is beyond the scope of this paper however
utilitarianism focuses on the welfare of society. It is part of a consequentialist approach
that looks at the future consequences of the …show more content…
This restores sense of fairness
and justice in society. Economic penalties fail to serve as an effective deterrence and lead
to loss of faith in criminal justice system.
Objection: Sophisticated investors understand risk of loss is inherent in investing and
have diversified portfolios and don’t put all their eggs in one basket. Unions protect the
job security of lower level employees and many are able to find similar jobs within a
short period of time. This ensures that no innocent party suffers, and the corporation
ultimately gets punished. The argument against punishing Corporate agents is twofold,
corporate agents are acting to promote the interest of the corporation and have no
criminal motive, and second, the decision making process is complicated and spans many
different divisions. It is impossible to hold any one person responsible for the decision of
many and action of others. By focusing on appropriate economic penalties we ensure
prevention of future crime, rehabilitation of corporations and denunciate the crime.
Response:
The graph (refer to index) shows that economic penalties paid by corporations over …show more content…
The first two reasons are beyond scope of this paper.
Many have suggested that both corporations and corporate officers should be held
responsible. This approach would not be justified under retributivist principles because it
again punishes the innocent and lets the guilty walk free. Corporations are artificial
people, they are not capable people with free-will. Corporations don’t have minds, body
and soul; they can’t be imprisoned or rehabilitated. In order to find someone guilty of
criminal liability, you need mens rea, the intention behind the act. Corporations don’t
have intentions, their officers do. Corporations also can’t be held responsible for the
crimes of other people since they have no way of fully controlling each and every one of
their employees. If an employee acts with his freewill against the corporate policy and
negligently harms another person, the Corporation should not face any liability because
that is unjust. Furthermore Corporations don’t have the legal rights other people do to not
incriminate themselves and the right to remain silent. There is no client-solicitor privilege
given to corporations. In a free and fair society, if they are to be held to legal