@CyberLN

It sounds like you are not differentiating between criminal and civil actions. A suit brought against a corporation for harm is typically a tort...a civil action in the courts, not a criminal case. Law enforcement officers are charged with protecting the citizenry from criminal actions...burglary, robbery, murder, assault, traffic violations, etc.

You are right, the example I used in my prior post appears to be, at a superficial analysis, a civil situation. I intentionally used this example for two reasons:

1. To limit my response -- for brevity -- to the purpose of laws (criminal and civil), and
2. To keep this discussion civil. You have the authority to ban me. I cannot ban you.

But ... I will give one global example of corporations being protected in the United Stated against criminal prosecution. The financial schemes and fraudulent activities surrounding mortgages in the U.S. that brought about the Great Recession in 2008, was settled between the financial institutions involved and the Justice Department without any of senior management going to jail. Meanwhile, senior executives in some European countries who where active players in the financial schemes, deceit and fraud have been, and continue to be prosecuted and jailed for their part in the global financial scandal that is at the root of the Great Recession.

Another event on the immediate horizon is DAPL. Leaks are inherent to gas pipelines. From 2000 through February 2017 there have been 432 gas leaks in the United States[1]. That averages to 27 leaks per year. So ... how bad does it have to get before leaks are no longer considered "accidents" but inherent? There have been 257 leaks since 2010 alone. The problem with leaks is becoming worse.

When DAPL leaks (not if), will the majority owners, board of directors and senior management go to jail for the deaths and serious injuries caused by the leakage into the drinking supply of the Indian reservations? Of course not! Corporations are primarily considered a person when it applies to their financial influence over politics. When it comes to ethical and moral responsibility -- not so much.

Will the future leakage constitute a criminal act in the U.S. even though the event is historically assured? Of course not!

I stand by my comment: Most laws are ultimately legislated to protect the lives, private property and wealth of the elite ruling class. Furthermore, it's not about whether or not the broken law is civil or criminal ... the elite ruling class will be protected anyway! Sooner or later, law enforcement (and the military) is going to be faced with making a decision: Are they (law enforcement agencies) going to protect and serve ALL the people or just follow the directives of the elites? Are the laws they are charged with enforcing "just" laws or is their a hidden agenda?

Based on DAPL at Standing Rock, law enforcement will serve their masters ... the elites. Law enforcement came in overwhelming numbers with munitions to protect the private property right of the elites while using violent force against the peaceful Indian protesters to protect their water supply.

[1] Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_S...

I actually have levied a couple of torts. One was settled in arbitration. The arbitrator was a disinterested party not in the employ of the organization I was suing. Are you suggesting that all arbitrators are on the take, so to speak?

No where did I say that the arbitrators were under the employ of the organization being sued! I said....

"Who holds seats on these arbitration panels? As it turn out, business representatives are the sole arbitrators -- with NO consumer group representatives."

Furthermore, I was referring to "consumer arbitration" as was clearly expressed in my comment.

You also paint a rather broad stroke by indicting all people sitting on boards of directors in a seemingly negative light. Are you suggesting that everyone sitting on a board, all corporations, and everyone of wealth is corrupt?

No. I'm saying that board members have one sole responsibility ... the ongoing viability of the corporation. Corporations, by law, are responsible to their shareholders ... not consumers. The elites are primarily focused on maintaining and growing their capital accumulation while also maintaining their influence, power and authority.

Are you also suggesting that your "commoners" are better suited to run corporations based on their membership in that classification?

Let me be clear, corporations are concerned about the welfare of the corporations and their stockholders. As I said above, this is mandated by law. Consumers are for the benefit of the corporation ... not the other way around.

Please do not read into these questions I've posed that I hold any particular opinion because of them. You've made some statements about which I am curious and request additional information.

Thanks ... I needed the humor today!