51–60 of 112 posts
Today I learned: the idea that a corporation can commit a crime is a very new one. [1] People commit crimes, not companies. [1] William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 464 (1765) (“A corporation cannot commit treason or felony or other crime in its corporate capacity though it’s members may in their distinct individual capacities.”)
> People commit crimes, not companies. I thought corporations are people, my friend.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Corporations are "people" when it comes to their thirst for massive political influence, but just when they get into legal trouble, they are suddenly NOT a person, but a vague multi-layered blob, impossible to prosecute.
I think you're a little confused... > but just when they get into legal trouble, they are suddenly NOT a person, but a vague multi-layered blob, impossible to prosecute. This is exactly why corporations are legally people. We can prosecute the whole blob instead of trying to assign blame to individuals. To see how this works, take a look at People v Rochester Ry. Light co (NY 1909)[1]. A corporation killed someone th…
Effectively, the last criminal prosecution of a corporate entity where actual people went to jail was Robert Mueller's team vs Enron.
After that, big money learned their lessons, plugged all the holes in their ships and now it's nearly impossible to do the same again.
Today I learned: the idea that a corporation can commit a crime is a very new one. [1] People commit crimes, not companies. [1] William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 464 (1765) (“A corporation cannot commit treason or felony or other crime in its corporate capacity though it’s members may in their distinct individual capacities.”)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To use modern lingo: Corporations are people-fluid. They can chose to be people or not. Forcing people-ness onto them would be corporate-phobic.
I don’t find snide sub-commenting toward the queer community helpful in this discussion or appropriate for Hacker News.
Instagram doesn't do facial recognition though, so this seems pretty baseless.
Instagram does do facial recognition, they are just not doing it for your benefit, or showing you the results.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's true, but still...do you have a source for that claim?
They need to make people responsible, not the corporate entity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're a little confused... > but just when they get into legal trouble, they are suddenly NOT a person, but a vague multi-layered blob, impossible to prosecute. This is exactly why corporations are legally people. We can prosecute the whole blob instead of trying to assign blame to individuals. To see how this works, take a look at People v Rochester Ry. Light co (NY 1909)[1]. A corporation killed someone th…
I am confused? Effectively, the last criminal prosecution of a corporate entity where actual people went to jail was Robert Mueller's team vs Enron. After that, big money learned their lessons, plugged all the holes in their ships and now it's nearly impossible to do the same again.
If jail time is the only thing that satiates you, then you need to clearly show that an individual broke the law. Failing that, we have the ability to charge the whole corporation to make sure that they are still held liable.