http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/opinion/26sauer.html
So what it all boils down to is that Wall Street will continue to carry on as it pleases, no matter what the consequences are to not only the United States economy but the worlds as well, justified under the guise, that it's what's best for the investor, who should never be punished over the choices of an "artificial being"
Some how it amazes me that no one has ever thought to unplug the "artificial being"
(retract it's corporate charter)for the safety of mankind.
The question of how best to discipline what Chief Justice John Marshall in 1819 called “an artificial being, invisible, intangible and existing only in contemplation of law” is indeed vexing. A corporation can’t be put in jail, its fines are ultimately paid by investors not responsible for the misconduct, and a court order forbidding future violations merely shelves the issue until the next occurrence.
In 19th-century America, permissive incorporation laws and rapid economic development led to the rise of the large corporation, which, in turn, led to a century of expanding federal regulation. Most measures regulated certain forms of conduct and prohibited others, specifying fines for failure to comply. There was little consideration given to questions of when, as a matter of practical legal policy, an artificial entity should be treated as if it were a person.
The S.E.C. wasn’t forced to grapple with the issue until 1990, when Congress greatly expanded its power to seek financial penalties from corporate violators. (Before then, companies could shrug off civil orders as a passing embarrassment.)
Initially, however, the agency made infrequent use of this new authority. Its staff saw fining public companies as harmful to shareholders, the very people the S.E.C. was created to protect. It also feared that managers would tap their corporate treasuries to buy their way out of individual liability.
