Financial Times columnist advocates imprisoning dirty corporate executives

Originally published at:


If there is no individual wrongdoing, he argues, there is no corporate wrongdoing.

Thw judge appears to also be saying if there is individual wrongdoing, there is no corporate wrongdoing. Would that logically imply that corporations can do no wrong?


Since SCOTUS decided that corporations are people and have the right to freedom of expression, in the case at hand, the right to donate any money they wish to politicians or political causes, as people, CORPORATIONS should be liable to be convicted and jailed.

As if that would happen…


“Crimes” are not crimes to the super rich just deals to negotiated. How neat. Corruption.


Imagine the reaction if an individual citizen acknowledged that he or she had not only committed criminal offences… and then became President of the United States of America!

But that would never happen



Does he? Where?

And if there is individual wrongdoing, that individual wrongdoing should be identified and punished.

That sure seems to let the employer off the hook.

I would say you are correct. Corporations cannot do a thing. People within the corporation can however. If a crime is committed, do we imagine a legal fiction of a corporation is committing the crime or do we recognize that it is people who are committing crimes?
Such a position completely sidesteps the argument of ‘too big to fail’ since it does not go after the corporation which provides jobs and other economic benefits to the community and instead goes after the actual wrongdoers. This leaves the corporation and jobs intact while removing the bad actors from the stage. It also has a chilling effect on others who may be considering similar criminal schemes. After all, once personal accountability has been restored, you’ll be hard pressed to find people willing to go to jail for you.
While it’s fun to play with the idea of corporate personhood and how that should result in corporations going to jail, that’s a fantasy we should ignore. After all, such a plan would harm those who did no wrong while insulating those who did from any accountability.


Maybe we should ignore it, but the courts certainly don’t. The whole point of a corporation is to shield the owners from liability. You might not like that idea, but who would ever open a restaurant if they knew they could be sued for everything - bank, home, everything.

The other problem with pursuing the “wrongdoers” is there’s always a mid-level manager to take the fall for the executives. Always. I almost suspect the judge knows this, but that would be corruption, so I must be wrong.

1 Like

I don’t disagree with any of that. But, once you begin to jail the mid level managers, you start having a hard time finding one to do it again. This is basically how we used to do it. While the system isn’t perfect, it was a damn sight better than ‘too big to fail’ - bail em out - and give em free money approach we have now.


Missing something…

"Corrupt Politicians should be jailed."
Nixon’s pardon started things downhill in the USA.
That set up Regan and Bush II.


When did putting people in jail for committing serious crimes become something people had to advocate for?


The broad availability of limited liability is an innovation of the second half of the 19th Century: although there were individual corporate charters before that, you couldn’t just pay a tenner and set up a corporation for any purpose, like now.

To put it another way, pretty much the whole of the early industrial revolution was operated with full liability, so I’m a little sceptical that limited liability is necessary, as opposed to convenient.


Lot’s of people. How many local restaurants are corporations?


“Financial Times columnist advocates imprisoning dirty corporate executives”

Sure, now when it’s too late and they’re already being made WH Cabinet members.


You nailed it.

All of them. Look at the certificate on the wall from the health inspector. The corporate name will be on there. If it says “Bob,” then I’m wrong.


I asked because I don’t know what the percentage is. I’d buy “many,” “most” and even “the vast majority” as plausible, but not “all of them.”

1 Like

Most corporate executives I’ve ever met bathed quite regularly