Quote

In corporations, the penalty for repeated failure on known tasks is being reassigned to other tasks or asked to leave the company.

If a company has acted badly, people want to punish it - not in order to deter future misconduct, but simply because they're outraged. And the more outraged they are, the more punishment they want to inflict.

If crimes are committed, they are committed by people; they are not committed by some free-floating entity. These companies and other entities don't operate on automatic pilot. There are individuals that make decisions - and some make the right decisions, and some make the wrong decisions.

Not having an administrator sends the wrong message to the airline industry.

Lying to a committee is a very grave abuse, and there ought to be a clear punishment.

Holding individuals accountable for corporate wrongdoing isn't ideological; it's good law enforcement.

You know what an effective deterrent to crime is? Jail! And do you know what kind of criminal penalty actually makes people think twice about committing crimes the next time? The kind that actually comes out of some individual's pocket, not fines that come out of the corporate kitty.

If you prosecute a CEO or other senior executive and send him or her to jail for committing a crime, the deterrent effect in my view vastly outweighs even the best compliance program you can put in place.

Why should the court impose a judgment in a case in which the SEC alleges a serious securities fraud, but the defendant neither admits nor denies wrongdoing?

The message has to be sent that if you commit a crime there has to be punishment.