"In practice, they do." And although I am a total ignoramus in the field (I can't even read a balance sheet, and my knowledge of English law is essentially limited to the thirteenth century, plus a few accretions), I think I can say with some certainty that most "settlements" are in fact "admissions of guilt" without "admitting responsibility."
Which is all well and good, and is clearly related to the plea-bargaining nonsense.
However. And I wish to stress however. This is a static view of what we have now (whether good or bad, or even workable).
My, extremely vague, point, is that this is a dynamic process. Stiff a large firm for the (apparently quite common) fault -- if that is what it is -- of a VP (aka tea boy with gold braid); get them to pony up $10 million for "reputation" (which they can obviously afford); and what happens next?
If none of this stuff goes to court, then clearly the guilty get away with it. If some of this stuff goes to court, then clearly the FSA will nail the little guys, because they're easy meat.
But in any case, if this becomes an entrenched attitude (and it nearly did, under Spitzer), then I seriously believe that it leads towards a mafia-like system of payoffs for protection.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-04-21 05:07 pm (UTC)"In practice, they do." And although I am a total ignoramus in the field (I can't even read a balance sheet, and my knowledge of English law is essentially limited to the thirteenth century, plus a few accretions), I think I can say with some certainty that most "settlements" are in fact "admissions of guilt" without "admitting responsibility."
Which is all well and good, and is clearly related to the plea-bargaining nonsense.
However. And I wish to stress however. This is a static view of what we have now (whether good or bad, or even workable).
My, extremely vague, point, is that this is a dynamic process. Stiff a large firm for the (apparently quite common) fault -- if that is what it is -- of a VP (aka tea boy with gold braid); get them to pony up $10 million for "reputation" (which they can obviously afford); and what happens next?
If none of this stuff goes to court, then clearly the guilty get away with it. If some of this stuff goes to court, then clearly the FSA will nail the little guys, because they're easy meat.
But in any case, if this becomes an entrenched attitude (and it nearly did, under Spitzer), then I seriously believe that it leads towards a mafia-like system of payoffs for protection.
I don't see that as a very good thing.