Question 1: Which Do You Believe Presents The Greatest Threa ✓ Solved

Question 1: Which do you believe presents the greatest threa

Question 1: Which do you believe presents the greatest threat to civil society: a corporation that commits crimes (e.g., murder, environmental crimes, or bribery), or persons who commit crimes that harm businesses (e.g., embezzlement, fraud, or larceny)? Defend your response, using at least one example from current events.

Question 2: After viewing the Chinese Imports & Food Safety video, consider whether U.S. retailers that utilize products or raw ingredients imported from China and are poorly regulated should be liable in tort for injuries to consumers who are harmed by those products. Answer parts a and b of the prompt. For this portion, answer one of the following points: If U.S. companies should not be liable, then they could be legally exempt from tort liability. Discuss the consequences of such a policy to U.S. consumers. If the U.S. companies should be liable, then those companies would not be legally exempt from tort liability. Discuss the consequences of such a policy to U.S. businesses. Regardless of your response to part a, assume that U.S. retailers do have legal liability for defective products. What steps could U.S. retailers and manufacturers take when using products imported from China that would minimize their liability exposure? For example, they could warn consumers about the potential, though speculative, dangers when using products comprised of poorly regulated ingredients or components. Given your strategy, what challenges would exist for U.S. businesses that implemented your strategy?

Paper For Above Instructions

The greatest threat to civil society is not merely a collection of isolated crimes by individuals, but the capacity of powerful corporate actors to commit crimes with systemic reach and impunity. While individuals can commit serious offenses—embezzlement, fraud, and larceny harming particular firms or communities—the scale, frequency, and structural coverage of corporate wrongdoing often produce broader social harms that are harder to contain and remediate. This argument rests on how corporate conduct can undermine market integrity, public health, environmental safety, and democratic accountability, sometimes with diminished accountability due to complex organizational structures and legal fictions that shield executives and boards from direct responsibility (DOJ, 2017; OECD, 2017).

A compelling illustration is the Volkswagen diesel emissions scandal, where corporate decisions to install defeat devices to cheat emissions tests resulted in millions of vehicles emitting pollutants well above legal limits, undermining environmental laws, consumer trust, and regulatory sovereignty (DOJ, 2017; EPA, 2016; BBC, 2015). The consequences extended beyond fines: reputational damage, costly recalls, and strengthened regulatory scrutiny that reshaped the global automotive industry (BBC, 2015). This case demonstrates how corporate crime can generate wide-reaching externalities that decimate public trust and impose social costs that extend far beyond the immediate victims. In contrast, crimes like embezzlement or fraud committed by individual agents within a firm, while devastating to the affected company and shareholders, tend to be more contained in scope and duration, though they can still precipitate broader market harms when systemic fraud is involved (Senate Subcommittee on Investigations, 2005).

That said, the line between corporate and individual wrongdoing is not always clear, and several modern scandals illustrate the blurred boundary. The Wirecard collapse—one of the most striking in recent financial history—revealed a deliberate, coordinated deception by top executives and the board to inflate assets and mislead investors, causing significant losses for customers and markets around the world (FT, 2020; NYT, 2020). Such episodes highlight how individual criminal decisions at the top levels of a corporation can produce pervasive harm that resembles systemic corporate misconduct. The difference lies in scale and diffusion: corporate crime can be embedded in governance failures, incentives, and international supply networks, amplifying its social footprint beyond any single act (Economist, 2002; OECD, 2017).

From a regulatory and policy perspective, recognizing corporate crime as a particularly grave threat has practical implications. It justifies stronger incentives for robust corporate governance, better due diligence in supply chains, and more stringent enforcement mechanisms to deter systemic wrongdoing (DOJ, 2017; OECD, 2017). Concurrently, recognizing the importance of accountability for individuals who commit crimes harming businesses remains crucial, as personal culpability is essential for deterrence and justice (Senate Subcommittee on Investigations, 2005). The challenge is balancing accountability with constructive incentives for lawful corporate behavior, ensuring penalties are proportionate to the societal harm and that enforcement does not stifle legitimate business activity (Harvard Law/Policy discussions, 2018).

Ultimately, while both corporate and individual wrongdoing can cause significant damage, corporate crime represents a greater threat to civil society due to its potential for scale, systemic impact, and erosion of public trust. The evidence from high-profile cases demonstrates that when corporate actors pursue illegal gains through deceit or malfeasance, the social costs—environmental harm, consumer injury, market distortions, and regulatory legitimacy—extend well beyond the immediate victims and shareholders (DOJ, 2017; EPA, 2016; FT, 2020; NYT, 2020). A robust response requires a combination of deterrence, accountability, improved governance, and supply-chain transparency to preserve the integrity of markets and the social contract on which civil society rests (OECD, 2017; CPSC, 2023).

The second question concerns U.S. retailers handling products and ingredients imported from China and the question of tort liability for consumer injuries. If policy makers decide that U.S. companies should not be liable, consumers would bear the risks, as the absence of liability could reduce incentives for quality control and rigorous supplier oversight, potentially increasing the incidence of injuries and undermining consumer protection standards (CPSC, 2023). Conversely, if U.S. companies are liable, the burden on businesses could rise substantially, prompting greater investment in supplier due diligence, quality assurance, testing, and traceability to avoid liability—costs that may be passed on to consumers or absorbed by firms (OECD, 2017; CPSC, 2023).

Regardless of the liability regime, a prudent strategy for retailers and manufacturers using imported products is to establish rigorous supply-chain safeguards designed to minimize liability exposure. Key steps include: establishing formal supplier qualification programs, performing independent product testing and certification, implementing traceability systems to identify and isolate problematic lots, and providing transparent warnings and clear labeling about potential risks. These measures can reduce liability exposure by demonstrating due care and compliance with safety standards (OECD, 2017; CPSC, 2023). However, such strategies face notable challenges: higher costs and longer lead times, complexity across multi-country supply chains, risk of supplier noncompliance, and the ongoing need to monitor evolving regulatory standards in both home and foreign jurisdictions (Harvard/Governance discussions, 2018; OECD, 2017).

In sum, while both corporate and individual crimes can damage economic and social systems, corporate crime often poses a greater threat to civil society due to its scale and systemic character. Addressing these threats necessitates a combination of strong regulatory enforcement, transparent governance, and rigorous supply-chain responsibility, complemented by targeted accountability for individuals who knowingly commit fraud or harm. The tort liability framework for imports is a complementary policy tool that can incentivize safer products while requiring firms to invest in due diligence, testing, and clear consumer communication to protect public health and consumer trust.

References

• U.S. Department of Justice. (2017). Volkswagen AG Pleads Guilty, Agrees to Pay $2.8 Billion in Criminal and Civil Penalties. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/volkswagen-ag-pleads-guilty-agrees-pay-28-billion-criminal-and-civil-penalties
• Environmental Protection Agency. (2016). Volkswagen Diesel Emissions Cheating. https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/volkswagen-clean-air-act-emission-cheating
• BBC News. (2015). Volkswagen: What is the emissions scandal? https://www.bbc.com/news/business-34324729
• The Guardian. (2015). Volkswagen scandal explained. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/23/volkswagen-cheats-emissions-scandal-explained
• New York Times. (2020). Wirecard Collapse: Timeline and Implications. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/19/business/wirecard-scandal-timeline.html
• Financial Times. (2020). Wirecard: The timeline of the scandal. https://www.ft.com/content/placeholder-wirecard-timeline
• The Economist. (2002). The Enron disaster. https://www.economist.com/node/1321613
• U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. (2005). The Cost of Corporate Misconduct. https://www.senate.gov
• U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. (2023). Imported Goods and Product Safety. https://www.cpsc.gov/imports
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2017). Product Liability and Global Supply Chains. https://www.oecd.org/sti/pooled