Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

By doing harm to a company you can still do harm to the owners, employees and clients of that company. You'd only be changing the entities involved in the process, not the outcome.


True. But then why do we almost never hold persons criminally accountable when they do harm through a company they control. Shouldn’t this be reciprocal?


A person doesn't control a company like they do a car. Proving criminal liability for an individual requires evidence tied to that individual.

Much easier, and a lower bar, to hold the corporate entity liable.


We could choose to hold executives and/or majority shareholders responsible instead of a "corporate entity".


We certainly could and I think, given a stringent set of regulations around record keeping of corporate decisions, we should.

Passing such a set of laws seems like a pipe dream at best, though.


Why should it be any different than for example charging a parent for his negligence in controlling his child?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: