Ever since the Ford Pinto case, Enron and now Murdoch there is an increasing number of laws passed that make corporations criminally responsible for their actions. The Supreme Court recently decided that because corporations are considered "a person" in the law they cannot be limited in their campaign contributions. In light of this recent decision, should corporations, and the corporate directors, be responsible for their criminal actions? Are corporations persons? Can you hold the corporate person responsible as well as the directors? If yes how?

Truly enterprises, and the corporate chiefs ought to be held at risk for their criminal activities.  

The subject of forcing criminal risk to an enterprise for criminal offences carried out by chiefs, supervisors, officials and different representatives of the partnership while directing corporate undertakings has increased a great deal of significance in the statute of criminal law. The very reason for the chance of forcing criminal obligation to a partnership is its autonomous legitimate character.  

The customary view was that a company couldn't be blameworthy of a wrongdoing, since criminal blame required aim and an organization not having a psyche could shape no expectation. What's more, an organization had no body that could be detained. So courts are probably going to force criminal obligation on an organization when the criminal demonstration is mentioned, approved, or performed by the governing body, an official or someone else having duty regarding planning organization strategy or significant level chairman having supervisory duty over the topic of the offence and acting inside the extent of his work. This is as per the office hypothesis.

Yes corporations, and the corporate directors should be held liable for their criminal actions.

Explanation:

The question of imposing criminal liability to a corporation for criminal offences committed by directors, managers, officers and other employees of the corporation while conducting corporate affairs has gained a lot of importance in the jurisprudence of criminal law. The very basis for the possibility of imposing criminal liability to a corporation is its independent legal personality.

The traditional view was that a corporation could not be guilty of a crime, because criminal guilt required intent and a corporation not having a mind could form no intent. In addition, a corporation had no body that could be imprisoned. So courts are likely to impose criminal liability on a corporation when the criminal act is requested, authorized, or performed by the board of directors, an officer or another person having responsibility for formulating company policy or high level administrator having supervisory responsibility over the subject matter of the offence and acting within the scope of his employment. This is in accordance with the agency theory.

Are corporations persons? As per US supreme court, they are, for some purposes. It ruled that corporations have the right to spend money in candidate elections, and that some for-profit corporations may, on religious grounds, refuse to comply with a federal mandate to cover birth control in their employee health plans. These are personal rights accorded to corporations. The dictionary defines "corporation" as "a number of persons united in one body for a purpose."

Yes, Corporate person as well as the directors can be held responsible. also corporate as an individuality has the right to sue or be sued.

answer; organization;

answer; (c) communism and socialism;