[stronglikedan]

It doesn't feel like that. It is like that. Companies are their own entities, separate from the people that run them, and you can't put a company in jail. This muddies the water as to who can be held accountable and prosecuted.

[snotrockets]

Putting people in jail shouldn’t be an end goal. There are two reasons to jail a person: 1. Prohibit them from causing further harm. 2. Revenge.

The latter, I hope were better than that. And to prohibit the possible offenders here, no need to jail them. Just forbid them from serving in capacity that can cause such harm: bar them from serving in executive or decision making role.

[wongarsu]

Those are not the only reasons to put people in jail. There is also 3. Deterring others from similar actions, and 4. Rehabilitation.

Number 4 obviously doesn't apply in the US justice system, but number 3, deterrence, is imho the major argument for putting executives or employees in prison. The threat of punishment can be a strong motivator, especially in corporate settings. But it only works if punishments are actually delivered after someone crosses the line

[ryandrake]

Exactly, and the lack of deterrence is why corporate executives just do whatever they want as long as the fines aren't a significant amount compared to the profit from wrongdoing. I bet if prison time was actually on the table, we'd suddenly have corporate executives that acted ethically and within the law.

[black6]

I think public floggings a la Starship Troopers would go a long way towards encouraging more social behavior. Much better than sending people to prison.

[Gibbon1]

The 0th reason to put people in jail is to show them an others who's boss.

[snotrockets]

But deterrence doesn’t seem to work, does it?

[alamortsubite]

For executives? I'd hope so.

[voisin]

Not if all that happens is a small fine.

[bunderbunder]

No really. There's been endless research on this, and increasing the magnitude of the punishment does very little to deter unwanted behaviors. Increasing the likelihood of getting caught does, though, even when the actual punishment for getting caught is relatively minor.

Which would seem to suggest that stuffing even more people into prisons may not help much; what we really need is to dial back some of the gutting of regulatory bodies that's made it so easy for corrupt behavior to flourish in the first place. Sunlight continues to be the best disinfectant.

And you can kind of see it on an international scale? The "better regulation" approach is favored by places like EU countries, while the "throw the leaders in jail" approach is more favored by places like Russia and China that don't exactly seem to be ideal role models for how to keep corporate corruption in check.

[cameldrv]

Why can’t you put a company in jail?

[krapp]

Companies are abstract legal entities, separate from the people who run them. Companies don't have a physical form that can be arrested and locked in a cell.

[dingaling]

You could suspend them from trading as a form of penal equivalence.

Imagine something similar to Chapter 11 in which they are temporarily protected from their creditors, but at the same time cannot function.

[cameldrv]

When a person is put in jail, they are not protected from their creditors. Very often their houses get foreclosed, assets sold, etc. This is considered to be a just part of the punishment.

The concept of corporate personhood is laughable when the most powerful method of coercion that the state has to ensure all people obey the law is completely inoperative for corporate people.

Why can't I just reincorporate myself as a Delaware C Corp, shoot up a school, and then pay a fine and walk away?