1-Every state across the globe has its respective ways of ensuring that those people who commit different crimes. However, when the case involves a firm or an organization, bringing to justice those who have committed a given crime becomes difficult. The probable reason behind this notion is because firms and organizations often look for corporate lawyers who stand on behalf of the entire organization making it difficult to reach out to the basic level of crime being committed. This in a way goes a long way in making it difficult to administer justice to the perpetrators of a given crime.
Matt & Ben (pp. 1 2015) claim that it would be fair only when there exists a system in place which could be used to help bring all those who commit crimes to justice equally regardless of their respective positions in their workplaces. This follows the issues being realized in case a given person within a given company has committed a crime only for the company to offer up one person to be taken to jail. The US Department of Justice (pp 1 2015) further enhances on the overall need to ensure that justice reaches to the individual who has committed a crime other than dealing with an organization. The memo also indicates that the only way through which corporate misconduct can be dealt with is by insisting on personal accountability of the various employees within a given organization.
In conclusion, personal accountability is the key to ensuring that justice has been administered to all citizens regardless of their respective positions either in each organization or not employed.
2-The essence of these articles is to serve justice on individuals guilty of corporate wrongdoing. The “justice Department Sets Sights on Wall Street Executives” article acknowledges criticism that has treated the criminals of Wall Street gently. It seeks to erase barriers that protect the prosecution of corporate employees. In most cases, companies found guilty in the housing crisis, financial meltdown and corporate scandals try to cover for their employee’s wrongdoings.
If somebody is found guilty, the blame is put on vice presidents of the various organizations or low-profile employees. The justice department seeks to end this. The department’s officials defend their record of fighting corporate crime saying that it is almost impossible to [p3, justice department sets sights on Wall Street executives] prosecute top officials who insulate themselves from direct involvement in the crime. Most of them (more than half) end up escaping jail terms.
The “justice department memo on corporate wrongdoing” article aims to fight corporate crime and seeks accountability from individuals responsible for wrongdoings. Both reports cite the primary challenge in fighting corporate crime to be difficulty in persecuting top guilty officials. This article, however, has another different problem: it is troublesome to persecute where decisions are made at various levels. It is therefore difficult to determine if someone had the knowledge or intent in committing the crime.
Both articles claim that for a corporation to be credited of cooperating with the justice department, they must provide all the relevant facts about the individual of interest. The article’s advice that the criminal and civil attorneys handling the cases must work together and be in routine communication with each other from the beginning to pursue the guilty individuals effectively. They believe that a corporation under investigation should not harbor liable employees and neither should perpetrate top officials be protected from criminal liabilities.
If justice departments would work together try to focus on perpetrated people from the beginning of investigations, it could help to fight corporate crime which has proved to be a menace in the United States and other countries. Governments should increase awareness on adhering to a particular code of conduct, and more pressure to tackle corporate crime will escalate.