Fining corporations without prosecuting executives hardened into a gentleman’s agreement

Evidence

In unethical and criminal corporate behavior, ā€œit is seldom the case that one individual is clearly responsible for a particular action. Thus, when a crime is committed, everyone can, with some degree of plausibility, point the finger at someone else.ā€ Whether it is precipitated by sociopathological propensity or by what Heath calls a ā€œcognitiveā€ response to the ā€œsituation,ā€ it is clear that the very constitution of corporateness lies at the core of unethical and criminal misconduct. … Criminality and breach of ethical boundaries thus in no structural way represent exceptions to an otherwise moral conception and practice but are, respectively, two levels of maneuvering within one and the same system. Criminality begins not where ethics runs its course, but rather where the unethical has been entirely exhausted. — Wael Hallaq, Restating Orientalism, 377 (#complicates, via linked claim)

There are certainly conspiracies in capitalism, but the problem is that they are themselves only possible because of deeper level structures that allow them to function. Does anyone really think, for instance, that things would improve if we replaced the whole managerial and banking class with a whole new set of (ā€˜better’) people? Surely, on the contrary, it is evident that the vices are engendered by the structure, and that while the structure remains, the vices will reproduce themselves. — Mark Fisher, Capitalist Realism, 142 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

  • XREF: connects to: Corporate antitrust violations once carried no prison risk for gentlemen; Corporate fines with no admitted wrongdoing shield executives from consequences; Prosecutors avoid charging top executives for fear of harming the economy (+12 more)

Broader Connections