Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

Yes, that's what I'm saying?

Hmmm. I'll try but maybe we are misunderstanding each other, because this doesn't seem debatable?

There are rules that define what kind of defenses, mitigating circumstances, evidence can be presented etc, are permitted for civil & criminal cases & what common law & evidence can be shared with the jury etc.. I'm unaware of any jurisdiction where corporations are considered equal to people or have a mens rea etc or were permitted to describe their corporate law-breaking as "civil disobedience" to a jury.

That's not how I'd say the law viewed corporations or punitive damages; guessing we use words differently & aren't understanding each other.

I am not sure what else to say; that different rules & laws apply to corporations & people seems to be a standard thing in my world. In my head its a given, so maybe my explanations are not as clear as I think. If I come across a link I'll share.




Thanks for sticking with the exchange. If courts apply different rules for how natural persons and corporations could speak to juries about reasons for noncompliance, that would indeed be interesting. Wasn't aware of that being the case.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: