Hacker News Reader

Comment by rcurry | Hacker News Reader

I’m not sure if I’m about to get laughed out of here, but what do folks think of something like the Uniform Code of Military Justice being required for executives of publicly traded corporations - not literally the UCMJ, but I mean a separate legal system that is designed to ensure more accountability for executives of these large businesses?

View on HN

To an extent this does exist in the form of the listing requirements for NYSE, NASDAQ etc. Matt Levine has talked previously about how the coupling between "higher standards of operating", "selling your shares to the public" and "being listed on a specific exchange" are kind of weirdly conflated at the moment and there's no particular reason they all need to be linked in such a manner.

It’s not going to go over well. Many people believe there’s different enforcement of the law for rich and poor. I expect it will promptly backfire when you actually introduce something like that unless executives suddenly get a reputation for being poor people. You would need to build a ton of trust and everyone will watch it closely for clickbait fuel.

Even if this somehow cracks down harder on execs than the current system, it could also be seen as a separate track to justice for rich people.

I'm not sure I buy into the idea, but maybe you could deal with this particular objection by stipulating that this is purely an extension of the regular rule of law?

Executives would still be subject to all the normal laws everyone else is but also had to comply with another system set up specifically to deal with those who wield disproportionate levels of power in society through their control of capital.

It's an interesting thought experiment if nothing else.

I just don’t see why there needs to be a UCMJ arrangement or extensions. Just make and maintain regular civilian laws and enforce them.

I've never considered that to be honest. Why do you think a separate legal system is necessary? What additional laws would these executives be subject too that say an employee or executive of a small private business not have to comply with?

I’m just sketching around here, but maybe you give up certain rights in return for being a high level decision maker at a large company. For instance you’re the CEO of a big oil and gas firm, but you don’t get to lawyer up and hide behind the fifth amendment when there’s an oil spill... people are willing to submit to an alternate legal system in return for veteran’s benefits, I’m sure they’d be willing to do it in return for the opportunity to make millions as the CEO of a big publicly traded company.

Just being able to hold people individually responsible for their decisions could be enough. Did you decide that your company should poison a dozen people? You're a criminal and should be charged as such in court.

Would this apply only to executive when they are directly aware of or actively encouraged/engaged in illegal activity?

What I wonder about when people suggest these things is what happens if a CEO takes every procedure possible to ensure the company he or she runs is engaged in no illegal behavior, but illegal behavior still occurs?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com