Guided Response: Respond to at least two of your fellow students’ posts in a substantive manner. Some ways to do this include the following, though you may choose a different approach, providing your...

Guided Response: Respond to at least two of your fellow students’ posts in a substantive manner. Some ways to do this include the following, though you may choose a different approach, providing your response is substantive:

Review the posts made by your peers. In response to your peers, first identify a non-traditional or creative way in which a corporation might be punished for committing a crime. Then discuss the consequences of implementing that punishment to the example used by your peer.

I need 2 responses to each student discussion board post. Please keep separate and in order. APA format

Daemon Goodwin

All crimes whether committed by a corporate entity or by an individual/individuals against a business are equal. It is a subjective matter; crime is crime no matter who commits the act. The act should not be judged as greater or lesser contingent upon the culprit. Corporations as well as individuals bear the responsibility to act civilly and not commit criminal acts; and if criminal acts are committed the persons acting are subject to corrective actions.

However, with that being said a corporation that commits a crime against civil society has more impact; because of the sheer size and scope of the organizations; the effects can influence a vast majority of the world population. For this reason, it can be deduced that a corporate crime is a greater threat to civil society. According to Mattera (2015) the BP oil spill was one of the worst corporate crimes of all time. The Deepwater Horizon disaster; also known as the BP oil spill/disaster was occurred April 20, 2010. The negligence of behalf of BP has caused numerous issues to the environment and society as a whole. BP settled its case with the U. S. government for a record $18.7 billion (Wade& Hayes, 2010). Corporations should have the responsibility to held to accountable to a higher standard than an individual that commits a crime.

References

Mattera, P. (2015 December, 18).
AlterNet
17 of the worst corporate crimes of 2015. Retrieved from https://www.alternet.org/2015/12/17-worst-corporate-crimes-2015/

Wade, T. & Hays, K. (2015 July, 9).
Reuters
. BP reaches $18.7 billion settlement over deadly 2010 spill. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bp-gulfmexico-settlement/bp-reaches-18-7-billion-settlement-over-deadly-2010-spill-idUSKCN0PC1BW20150702

Andrea Busch

A corporation that commits crimes poses a greater risk to society than persons who commit crimes that harm business. When businesses commit crimes they are often fined for their wrong doing. In the case of a corporation, shareholders are affected only up until the amount of their investment in the form of stocks. Businesses can then evaluate whether they can afford to take the risk based on how much the risk will the company gain financially in the long run. On the contrary, when a person commits a crime that harms a business, such as fraud or embezzlement, they are directly affected and suffer long term consequences which could include jail time and fines.

A current example of a corporation committing a crime is seen in the case of Uber’s self-driving car killing a woman in Arizona. Uber deliberately disabled a safety feature in the vehicle, the emergency braking system, in order to reduce the potential for erratic vehicle behavior in alerting the human driver of impending danger in the road. Uber took this risk to advance their technology. Part of their gamble with disabling the safety feature was to gamble with other people’s lives. The price that was paid, someone’s life, was to advance themselves at the risk of individuals. If an individual did the same thing, they would be held directly accountable. In a corporations’ case they were merely fined and financially profited off the advancement in their own technology.

Corporations committing crimes are dangerous because the lack of long term consequences suffered by corporations lets corporation ask the question whether committing crimes will put them financially ahead in the long run. Essentially it puts forth the argument that as long as a corporation has enough money to pay off fines, they can continue doing bad things without long term consequences.