Chris Mooney reads a Washington Post editorial against anti-tobacco litigation and takes objection, arguing that the prime benefit of such lawsuit is its deterrence effect for corporate misdeeds.
[I]t wouldn’t just be “satisfying” to see the tobacco companies held accountable. They, and other companies, need to get the message that you simply can’t get away with this kind of corporate behavior in modern society. I don’t know why the Post doesn’t seem to care about this potentially very significant deterrent effect.
I can’t speak for the Post, nor do I want to defend corporate misdeeds. But if anything the case of Big Tobacco shows how uneven the deterrent effect is. For the lesson these lawsuits give to corporations is less “you will pay for misdeeds” and more “if you’re unlucky enough to have the tide of public opinion and social attitudes turn against you at some future point, you’ll pay for your misdeeds.” I’m not saying that the case against tobacco companies can’t rest on the facts, but the last decade’s tobacco lawsuits have a political origin, and the lawsuit awards have everything to do with changing attitudes toward smoking per se.
Companies are certainly more careful now to avoid present and future litigation. But the actions they take seem just as likely to be cosmetic as substantive. Furthermore, corporations are not privately owned, and any deterrence may be reduced by the time frame involved - individual shareholders and managers will likely not face any detrimental effect from future lawsuits.
No comments have been added to this post yet.