Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Deny wrongdoing yet pay anyway?

In what twisted part of the cosmos does it makes sense for a corporation or company to be able to admit no wrongdoing (in terms of what they were sued for), yet have to pay money in a settlement?

How can they agree that they owe someone money but be able to say they did nothing wrong?

If they truly did nothing wrong, they shouldn't pay anything at all. That they paid, however, means they did something wrong: paying is admitting this.

What am I missing here?

If I smack into someone in traffic or a tree in my yard falls on my neighbor's house, I pay for these transgressions. I can't say, "These weren't my fault, but here's some cash anyway."

If corporations want corporate personhood, want the rights that people have, they should behave like people and admit wrongdoing when they do wrong.

No comments: