When we talk about reducing crime there is a belief that the laws we have in place act as a deterrent to would be criminals. This article from the Heritage Foundation talks in some depth about the idea.
If this idea is true for individuals it should also be true for companies which are just a collection of individuals. Yet many of those who want more and stricter laws for individuals are many of the same people who argue against adding any regulations to industry.
The standard argument against this is that regulations cost jobs. While this may be true it is also true that not having regulations can cost jobs and sometimes lives. The BP oil spill, for example, was caused by corporations cutting corners and ignoring regulations and it cost lives, jobs, and economic activity.
As a result the BP CEO in charge when these decisions occurred spent zero days in jail and paid no fine but he did receive an $18 million dollar severance package - not much a deterrent for other CEO's contemplating a similar avoidance of rules and regulations.
Similarly the excessive risks taken by the banking industry cost millions a jobs when the housing bubble burst. A bubble which was seen by many well before it occurred yet nothing was done to avoid this crisis and no one was held accountable for the actions that resulted in the great recession.
If more and stricter laws work to prevent crimes then it should be used to prevent all crimes. As Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan stated "But in view of the constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens...all citizens are equal before the law."
Holding one segment to a different moral standard than the rest is un-American and unjust no matter the rationalization.
No comments:
Post a Comment