Hacker News Reader

Comment by arrosenberg | Hacker News Reader

If they know about malfeasance and don't stop it, they are complicit; if they don't know about it, they are grossly negligent. In either case, they should be held accountable for the crimes. Maybe in an ideal world it would not be that way, but since we are seeing corruption run amok in corporate board rooms, it's clear they need a greater incentive to police their organizations.

View on HN

What we have is a severe lack of enforcement of the laws we do have.

We do have legal mechanisms to hold the individual people criminally liable for criminal offenses the corporation commits, the problem is we don't enforce it.

Boeing just got off scott free for killing 338 people. DOJ told the judge to dismiss the case.

We've also neglected to enforce our own anti-monopoly laws for far too long, and most recently when there could have been actual, real change, we let Google go with nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

The laws aren't the problem, the corrupt and paid for DoJ is the problem.

I mean we live in a country where 'defund the police' and 'eliminate jails' are considered somewhat mainstream legal positions (In that there are many politicians elected to office throughout the country who have held these views). All of its stems from a lack of desire to enforce standards.

Given that neither the police nor jails are relevant to corporate violations of the law, do you have a point other than that you don't understand either of those?

There is already a standard of evidence for this: "Knew or should have known". Which covers needing to exercise a certain standard of care, but without the overly rigid definition of strict liability (something that tends to result in very stupid and unfair situations).

What if every board must include a party commissar?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com