As a result, Rhode Island has some great followup and public health programs. It wasn't that much money to DuPont, but it did real good in Rhode Island, and I believe DuPont changed their legal tactics afterwards.
Maybe so but DuPont continues to pollute the world even today.
I'm happy this fine happened. I hope it gets enforced, though in the current political climate I too have severe doubts it will be. Even so though, and even if this lawsuit is followed by many others in many jurisdictions that are all equally successful- the dream- the people behind these decisions still leave without a hitch.
As long as sociopaths can sit atop corporate entities, do horrendous shit, and then simply leave wildly rich and free, even with the corporate entity in flames, that is not justice and we'll continue getting exactly what we've gotten: an endless stream of the aforementioned sociopaths harming people at scale, for money.
Not trying to be a doomer. Just trying to say when the sum total of personal consequences for these people is a lot of bad press and billions of dollars, it's an easy choice for too many.
My point was more about the positive outcomes from these kinds of fines, rather than about _forcing_ corporate behavior change. If corporations are going to act like psychopaths, let's at least make them pay a tax for it with fines like this.
Oh yeah for sure, I'm not suggesting the fine is bad, I'm suggesting it's insufficient. I want to "yes and" this, not replace it.
Fine them, and incentivize change for them and all other businesses in the space. Fines just clearly, demonstrably don't do that. Jail time for executives would, IMO.
Bigger fines would, too. If you gain $1B by doing an action, but you have a >10% chance of a >10B fine, it's expected value is negative.
The 10% and 10B might need to be extra high to account for hyperbolic discounting, but I think we could get there just by increasing those numbers. Shortening the time from gain and fine would also help. I don't think we can get it into a single-quarter cycle, but most CEOs don't want their company bankrupted five years down the line, either.
Imagine that. Forget the corporate veil, if you are invested heavily in a company you are financially enabling the harm they do. Maybe you should also be somewhat legally liable for the harm they do too
As a result, Rhode Island has some great followup and public health programs. It wasn't that much money to DuPont, but it did real good in Rhode Island, and I believe DuPont changed their legal tactics afterwards.