Corporate Law Corporate Manslaughter Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 4000 words

Corporate Law Corporate Manslaughter - Essay ExampleBut only just. The spic-and-span draft bill on corporate manslaughter is a ghost of what was once proposed. But, for the first time in the United Kingdom, there cogency now be a chance of prosecuting large companies for killing their workers (2005). Between 1997 and the 2005 adoption, twelve promises were followed by delays, and five thousand people died as Parliament deliberated (Monbiot, 2005). Home Secretary claims that delays were delinquent to complexity of the virtue are belied by the rapidity which the Prevention of Terrorism Act was pushed through Parliament, which allows conviction prior to a fair trial (Monbiot, 2005). The law does not allow any individuals to be tried, only companies as a whole to be fined, which when combined with existing law that only direct fellowship and malfeasance on the part of directors hindquarters lead to a prosecution means that only small businesses are desirely to ever see imprisonmen ts (Monbiot, 2005). As directors can still be disqualified and imprisoned for a gross breach of their duty of care towards their shareholders investments, money in the United Kingdom pull up stakes delay more valuable than human life (Monbiot, 2005). Worse, the standard for senior management being tried is grossly minimal It must be proven that the senior manager sought to cause the organisation to profit for them to be criminally liable (Monbiot, 2005). When seeking to punish a corporation for their malfeasance, particularly in the lawsuit of deaths caused by reckless or dangerous working environments, pursuit of profit or easily-avoidable issues such as quality of chemicals or safety controls for machinery, the legal justifications for prosecute action are a few fold. 1. Deterrent. Both the violating company and its staff and other companies and their staffs need to be put on notice that such manner isnt tolerated. For example In a civil suit against a company that willfully harmed an innocent, there should be a toll taken for the life of the innocent, so a toll taken for the psychological harm dealt to the family and loved ones, then finally a toll taken purely as a hindrance cost. 2. Justice. The person who died deserves their fate to be taken seriously, the harm rectified, amends done (Lewis, 2009). 3. Investigative, amends-based and reparatory. The family that died deserves to have someone make amends for and take responsibility for the action. And when it comes to an organization like a corporation, the investigation can bring to light other violations. It is in the first two realms that the Act is so limited. An unlimited monetary deterrent might be appropriate, but there are so many approaches for the defendant to mitigate the harm that it is unlikely that the fine will ever truly be a serious deterrent to companies with massive operating capital and cash flows (Reid, 2010). When it comes to corporate law, punishments need to be extremely sever e because big companies have the capability to protect themselves using ties to politicians and communities, deep pockets and powerful lawyers. More importantly, individual managers may think that, if a company faces a billion-dollar fine, the worst that will happen is that they will lose their job or will be demoted or punished,