Summations Only

Fines, or mandated dissolution. (There's that "death penalty" for corporations that some have asked for. Fine with me!) How would you determine that a corporation acted with malice aforethought while none of its employees did? I'm curious what you think it means for a corporation to "know" something.

Maybe if the Board of Directors were liable for the jail time things would straighten out?

If I, as a living breathing human being (see: person) do something that results in the death or harm of another human being, what happens to me? If a coroporation dumps toxic chemicals in an unauthorized area or somewhere that harms or kills people, what happens to them?

In an astute financial move, Herman Cain's campaign has paid over $100,000 to buy copies of Herman Cain's autobiography This Is Herman Cain! as published by that previously unknown publishing house, Herman Cain T.H.E. New Voice, a for-profit company owned by Herman Cain.One might hope that he'd at least give himself a discount, but unfortunately that would be illegal.

You wouldn't have to prove that.The corporation enjoys the rights of individuals, it should endure the penalties as well.If a corporation engages in an illegal activity and gets caught, ALL employees should be subject to the criminal penalty.If you want you can scale the penalty based on how high up the food chain you were, but I want people behind bars.Threatening to dissolve the corporation is useless. I have friends who are corporations for the sole purpose of protecting themselves from litigation. If someone tries to sue, the corporation owns exactly 1 clip board and 1 pen. They just dissolve it and spend $50 to file for a new one.It's all the rights and protections, with none of the penalties or threats.

Let's unpack this. Walk me through the process by which a corporation does something, as distinguished from the people who work for the corporation doing something. Corporations have no existence apart from the legal fiction that they're discreet units who can own property and delegate agency. It strikes me that the group that seems most often to ascribe to corporations a form of "personhood" they can't meaningfully have are the people, like you, who are supposedly opposed to "corporate personhood."

You'd have to prove that in the situation that was specified; that is, where somehow the corporation was guilty of criminal acts while none of its employees were. I don't see how that works. If persons engage in criminality on behalf of the corporation, then they're personally guilty of criminal acts, as are the people who asked/ordered them to do it. What need is there to charge the corporation? That would be like trying to indict the Mafia, as opposed to the human beings who constitute the Mafia. It would be like the police showing up to arrest not you, not your wife, but your marriage. How do you see that working, exactly?I'm just asking. Corporate "personhood" seems like a red herring, when you really get into it there's no "there" there; and in point of fact, we who are subject to the depredations of corporations actually benefit from their legal personhood. Consider how hard it is to prosecute people for Mafia ties and activity when every single defendant is factually able to claim (as they invariably do) that there's no such thing as "the Mafia." In fact, perhaps the greatest erosion of our American civil rights have resulted from efforts to fight organized crime; civil forfeiture law is a direct result of municipalities working their way around the fact that there's no legal basis to ever conclude that something "belongs to the Mafia." So they've invented a way to charge objects with crimes, regardless of any lack of evidence against the owner, and seize possessions absent any actual conviction. It's much less erosive to civil liberties to have corporations that can legally own things, because seizing those things won't require violating anybody's civil rights. That's great, but there's a difference between too-clever-by-half junior legal strategies and things that actually work in court. Have any of your friends successfully evaded civil liability this way? I doubt it. And working through a corporate shell would do absolutely nothing to shield them from criminal prosecution, which is what we're all talking about.

Except that you already said that the primary threat of criminal prosecution to the "corporation" is to dissolve it.What I am saying is that a great number of corporations are founded specifically to be dissolved in case of trouble.This is how it works in my industry.I am going to produce a TV show. I set up a corp called "Nuggin TV Show Inc". You hire Nuggin TV Show Inc to make the show. I am an employee of NTSI.The show gets made and is successful.At some point someone comes along and claims that the show was his idea to begin with and decides to sue me, the network, the studio, the stars, etc.He can't sue me directly, since my name doesn't appear on any of the contracts. I'm just an employee of one of the companies involved.He sues NTSI instead. NTSI surrenders it's assets "A folder, a pencil, a clipboard, a folding chair" and then dissolves.I form "Nuggin TV Show two Inc" and go find my next job.People do this ALL the time.

I didn't say that, because that's stupid. It wouldn't work, anyway.And you've not yet explained why it's necessary - why does "the corporation" have to be subject to criminal penalties when we can simply charge the employees who acted criminally? Sure he can sue you, directly. The corporation didn't violate his copyright; you did. You can assign the rights to the show you supposedly created to the corporation, but unless your corporation didn't pay you, you've personally profited from the violation. The original rights holder can go after your deep pockets. The corporation doesn't do shit to protect you; how could it? If all it owns is a folding chair, how is it going to hire a lawyer?

Because it's frequently impossible to determine which employees acted criminally.Cigarette companies have increased nicotine and hidden the fact that cigarettes cause cancer. This was going on for decades.Which specific employees should be prosecuted for this? Do you have any idea? If the corp refuses to give up names? If the lawyers cite "work product"?We KNOW the corporation engaged in these activities. Why not punish it?

I'm an employee of the corporation. My name does not appear on any contracts.I'm producing a show, I haven't violated anyone's copyright at all.My corp is paid by the studio to make sure that script X is produced. I didn't write it.I'm an employee. I haven't entered into any contracts. I'm simply doing my job organizing an ongoing business venture that the corporation entered into. Totally innocent of any wrong doing.

Then how would you determine which corporation acted criminally? And what does it mean for a corporation to "act" in the first place? Explain how you're not just advocating a standard of "guilt by association." The executives and scientists who knowingly suppressed or fabricated evidence to conceal the harmful effects of tobacco. Which ones were those? I have no idea. But its the responsibility of the government to find out. It perverts justice to say "well, a crime happened but it's too much of a bother to who did it; you're guilty by association so we'll punish you, instead." I don't understand how it's somehow more fair to allow the executives and scientists of a tobacco company to push forward a series of low-paid scapegoats to take all the blame and punishment. Sure! But you're not talking about punishing a corporation, you're talking about criminal sanctions against the people who worked for it, regardless of whether or not they're personally guilty of crimes. And you think it's corporate personhood that somehow threatens civil liberties? Stop being stupid for a second.

Absolutely.If you are an employee of a corporation which is doing the wrong thing under the current system, it's in your best interest to hide it and pocket the extra cash.If you are an employee of a corporation which you even suspect MIGHT be considering doing the wrong thing under a system where you, the mail room, the secretaries and everyone else can be executed for it, you'll either make sure that the corp is not doing the wrong thing or you and everyone else will quit.

Who wrote it? If its was produced by the corporation, and the corporation's only employee was you, then perforce you're the one who wrote it and therefore you're the one who violated the copyright. If the corporation makes no claim to have produced the script, then one of its employees must have violated the copyright, and the only employee was you so, perforce, you're the one who violated the copyright.You get zero protection from your shell corporation. The point of a corporation is to shield your assets from the mismanagement of others in your company; it can't shield your assets from your own personal civil liability. Well, that's not true at all. Your name appears on the contract between you and your company, the one that allows you to be paid. And you have to be paid, right, because the studio pays your company for the TV show but somehow it has only a folding chair as assets. Where did those assets go? Obviously, they went to you since the point of your fraudulent enterprise was to collect payment but shield yourself from asset seizure. If the company paid you a wage but didn't file a W2, you're both guilty of tax fraud. (Or another way to look at it is that you've been embezzling from your own company.)So, there's a paper trail between you "producing" a script that violates someone else's copyright, and you being paid for the script and TV show. Therefore you've profited from the violation; you can be named in the suit. They don't even have to subpoena the corporate charter to get your identity, they can just go look it up at the courthouse. (Of course, conveniently, you named the company after yourself so they don't even need to do that.) You've entered into a contract that specifies a work for hire, and NugginCo has reported to the IRS that you were paid such and such amount for that work. That's public information. The suit can go right to you. And make no mistake - even a junior lawyer is going to make sure to attach you to the suit, because you're the one with the deep pockets. You can make that claim, I guess, but the standard of evidence in a civil trial isn't "beyond reasonable doubt", it's "preponderance of the evidence." Your plaintiff doesn't have to prove beyond a doubt that you violated his copyright; he just has to show that it's more likely that you did than that you didn't, and that he suffered damages as a result. Your corporate shell isn't going to do much to protect you. Your guilt isn't what the court will determine; only your liability. As sole employee of the company, you're definitely going to be solely liable.

What "extra cash"? Great, I guess, except that the death penalty is unjust to begin with, and collective punishment is illegal. (Cruel, unusual, and we signed treaties prohibiting it equivalent in stature to the US Constitution.)