If I gave 40,000 people cancer as an individual and killed several thousands of people as a result, I wouldn't lose 3 years of disposal income. I would lose all of it, forever, as I sit and rot in prison for the rest of my life.
This is the sort of punishment we need for corporations.
They should pierce the corporate veil and go after any individuals who had personal involvement in the matter while being fully aware of what the consequences of their actions were. That way, the livelihood of other employees who have no say in the matter is not affected, and only those who directly participated are held accountable.
Which specific criminal law do you think they have violated? Please provide a citation to applicable state or federal criminal code. What they did was shitty, but I'm skeptical whether it would be possible for prosecutors to win a criminal conviction.
The way that negligent homicide is defined it would be impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a particular person's fatal cancer was directly caused by talc. A strong probability isn't sufficient for a criminal conviction.
Some new law would likely be needed. How could such a law be written in a manner that satisfies the vagueness doctrine?
You're really missing the point. Criminal laws must satisfy the vagueness doctrine or else all convictions will be thrown out on appeal. There are literally centuries of case law in this. So your comment makes no sense and displays a lack of understanding about the basics of the criminal justice system.
I did miss the point. I thought "vagueness doctrine" was just a term invented here because it kinda sounds like it. You know, a catch all to deter people who want to make rules or regulations.
Considering laws exist for many types of actions it should be possible to make one in which knowingly producing and distributing any product for any price that you know to cause harm, and that harm is not made of aware of to the public in an obvious way, should be held liable for any damages that occur from the use of that product as indicated by the instructions
This includes people that approve of the actions and/or responsible for the subordinates involved in the production/approval of said products, in the company/subsidiary/any related entity, as long as that person was provided with the information or access to information that would allow them to ascertain the risk with a reasonable amount of accuracy. However, it shan't be required to show that person actually consumed or understood that information if it was expected that they do so.
The punishment must be but can not be limited to monetary fines which can not be purged through bankruptcy. <something about jail here>
Let's consider, for a moment, that they paid nine billion (with a B) as a settlement because they thought that it would be cheaper than the outcome of fully litigating it. Which is to say, $9B was the cheaper option.
Regardless of the numbers, for that to be true, you've got to be pretty convinced you've fucked up really hard.
What do you think the lawsuit was about? You think J&J is being forced to pay the measly 8.9 billion just because they want this to go away? 40,000 people got cancer that we know of. People should be in jail.
Assumably this is why there’s a trial. J&J is willing to pay $9B to avoid one; this leads me to believe that they think they have a significant risk of having cancer be linked to their product.
40,000 people claimed it did and followed through with legal action. Sure, maybe only a percentage of them actually got it from talc. But globally, what percent of people who did get cancer from talc actually sue? Also likely a low percentage.
That's not how the system works. It would be very difficult to convict you as an individual of a felony that would send you to prison. The burden of proof in criminal cases is much higher.
Even if you were found liable in civil court you wouldn't lose all of your income forever. You would be able to declare personal bankruptcy and clear the debt.
>>Even if you were found liable in civil court you wouldn't lose all of your income forever. You would be able to declare personal bankruptcy and clear the debt.
I guess it depends.
From the net:
"Instances in which a court ordered judgment won’t be overridden by bankruptcy include debts related to:
Student loans
Any debt owed to the government, including taxes and fines
Court ordered awards related to criminal proceedings"
I would imagine Google as a corporation would be more careful about giving people cancer. “We are too big for accountability” has been a bad idea every time it has been used in America.
J&J should be punitively punished for knowing about asbestos in their product and hiding it from the public. Whether or not anyone died as a result, corporations should not be allowed to be malfeasant and get away with it because only a small number of people were provably harmed. Corporations should have to behave like the cops are watching them.
> Johnson & Johnson executives knew for decades about the risk of asbestos exposure linked to its talc products, including the famous baby powder it began selling 129 years ago. After years of pushing back on researchers and scientists, the company began facing a flood of lawsuits in recent years, along with government investigations and lawmaker inquiries.
> Who is shilling? The data suggesting asbestos in talc is a real health hazard is tenuous at best.
If you really believe that preposterous claim, put "asbestos" on the package and see how many people buy it. You sails will fall off a cliff. All your other products will be treated like they are radioactive too.
You want free market? That's free market for you. If you lie about the product, you are defrauding the customer.
But somehow fraud only ever sends the little people to jail.
> A bunch of class action lawyers just made $30B dollars.
Where is this number coming from? The listed settlement amount is an order of magnitude less than this, and lawyers typically get some percentage (15-30?), which has to be approved by the court. I'm not saying they didn't make a lot of money here (and for full disclosure, I used to be a lawyer), but I'm not seeing how they raked in tens of billions.
Who are you even responding to? No one's arguing the science, they're talking about the size of the settlement relative to the corporation's financials.
Imagine if Google was fined 50% of a year’s revenue because of Google Voice.
That’s a massive penalty by any measure.