Should imaginary (jurisitic) people share human rights?

[Clarity]

I was going through some old papers I wrote, and one of them was about the legal and historical genesis of juristic people as right holders. It really is a terribly interesting story -- that is, how the legal precedent for the sharing of some rights came to be -- but it's also a worthwhile question. How equal should we be under law when there is no equality biologically or economically? I'm going to steal some quotes from that paper, and a couple of my own passages, but this is all put together for the sake of a discussion here. I'm genuinely interested to see if anyone else ever spent any time on this issue, and what their thoughts are.

Persons are divided by the law into either natural persons or artificial. Natural persons are such as the God of nature formed us; artificial are such as are created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government, which are called corporations or bodies politic.
Sir William Blackstone, 1 BL. Com. 123​

It was probably a mathematician that first conceived the plan of feigning an unreality as a convenient step in the formation of [a] hypothesis, and then, having established his theory, conveniently let his fiction disappear.
George Deiser. "Juristic Person I," The University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 57, No. 3, Vol. 48, New Series, pp. 131-142 (Dec., 1908)​

Some of you, no doubt, already know that it's not entirely unreasonable to suggest that the assumption that artificial/imaginary/juristic persons are due natural human rights may have been something of a clever legal theft, but at best was the result of legal confusion. Those less familiar would probably suggest it sounds a bit far-fetched, but the truth is (as I understand it, and I spent quite a bit of time on the subject some time ago) that there is no valid point of origin in law for such a transfer. Don't misunderstand; the current prevailing legal theory does indeed assume that corporations are persons within the meaning of the Fourteenth amendment, and this can be traced directly back to Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific R. Co., 118 U.S. 394 (1886) -- but that case dodged the issue, rather than established it as law. It's not, technically speaking, valid precedent.

Here's the lineage:

In preceding arguments for Santa Clara, Justice Waite said:

"The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does."​

This statement (not part of the case, not binding precedent, not law at all) was entered into the reporter thusly:

"The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a state to deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."​

And then it was used as precedential support by Justice Harlan (as an early example) in Covington & Lexington Turnpike R. Co. v. Sanford, 164 U.S. 578 (1896).

"It is now settled that corporations are persons, within the meaning of the constitutional provisions forbidding the deprivation of property without due process of law, as well as a denial of the equal protection of the laws. Santa Clara Co. v. Southern Pac. Ry. Co., 118 U. S. 394, 6 Sup. Ct. 1132; Pembina Con. Silver Mining & Milling Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U. S. 181, 189, 8 Sup. Ct. 737; Railroad Co. v. Beckwith, 129 U. S. 29, 9 Sup. Ct. 207; Railroad Co. v. Gibbes. 142 U. S. 386, 391, 12 Sup. Ct. 255."​

Follow that again if you're unfamiliar. A pre-'trial' statement subject to no argument or review and not a matter of law, entered into the reporter for the case by a former railroad executive (more on that in a moment) in slightly stronger language, cited in subsequent cases as legal precedent.

Let me stop for a moment and say that this isn't necessarily about presenting it all as some sort of nefarious conspiracy. Even if the reporter (John Chandler Bancroft Davis) had a vested interest in seeing this become law, the reality is the whole thing is probably more a legal novelty than anything else. Nonetheless, what the railroads had been trying (and failing) to accomplish for years through the lower courts was accomplished by a misleading summary by a single court reporter.

Davis had worn a number of hats in his life before becoming the United States Supreme Court Reporter of Decisions. He was the son of John Davis, the governor of Massachusetts. His brother was Congressman Horace Davis. He practiced law, served as a newspaper correspondent, served as secretary to the American embassy in London, was U.S. Minister to Germany, and served twice as Assistant Secretary of State. He was the Court Reporter of Decisions from 1883 to 1902, and (interestingly) also served previously as the president of the board of directors for the Newburgh & New York Railroad Company.

So that's a snapshot of the rather compelling (I think) background on the issue. Here, then, is the lead-in to my question:

A natural man has blood, knows his life to be finite, bears rights and liberties afforded him by the Constitution, and may suffer civil and criminal consequences alike if he violates the law. A typical man, by most measures, is of singular means. While he may contract to exchange with others, may share in labor, may partake in the creation and/or operation of a corporate body, his ability to shape anything beyond his immediate environment and experience is naturally limited. A juristic person's life is by no means tied to an inevitable biological destiny and is by some definitions an immortal. As discussed above, a juristic person shares (as a result of the headnote that served as precedent) a measure of the rights and liberties of the natural man. Unlike him, the juristic person cannot go to jail, it faces only civil recourse for any actionable misdeeds or negligence. The greatest different may be in its means. The corporate person stands apart of the natural man in terms of power, reach, and influence over the shape and process of law and government. While the man may serve even the highest offices, he may never alone wield the power to influence our society the way some particularly powerful and deep-pocketed corporations do. One only has to look as far as the oil and pharmaceutical industries to find copious and sometimes terrible consequences for this truth.

While the foundation (of/for) juristic people as "persons" in the eyes of the Fourteenth Amendment may be based on legally dubious ground, it may well be that such a distinction is a formality. Legal precedent achieved by any means is still open to re-interpretation and adjustment, and over the years the Court has slowly chipped away at some of the rights juristic persons have enjoyed. It may be worth noting that such erosion has certainly not seemed to harm these imaginary people, as their status and power in our society seems (at times) to be at potentially dangerous highs. It is difficult to accept equal treatment, in regards to our (that is, for "natural people") rights and liberties, when certain exceptions to the same do not apply. Corporations routinely make economic decisions that may cost natural persons their welfare and/or lives, but may face no criminal charge for the taking of life, even through a grossly negligent act. It faces punishment through exclusively civil channels, and often in the form of fines. As discussed above, a corporation may be immortal, may wield the will and the power of all of its shareholders, but does so with a single purpose in mind -- profit. The utility and benefit of these structures, and the economic growth and opportunity they provide is without question, but one has to wonder if one of the theories that suggest there are better ways to legally perceive and treat these "people" might lead to a more equitable and even safe distance between natural and artificial persons. There seems to be, in some quarters, a nebulously defined hope that if the Court addresses the shaky foundation of this area of law, and finally hears arguments on the question itself, that some of the more pervasive ills that beset us by way of the immense power and influence of corporate structures will be remedied. However, this seems to be too great a leap. What we may be able to reasonably hope for are simple, clearer distinctions between natural Americans and the artificial constructs comprised of the same. Then again, just as it did in 1886 when this matter was 'decided,' the Court may simply choose to avoid the question entirely, when and as it faces it again in the future.

So my questions are simple, really. Should natural and juristic people stand equal under the law? If not, what rights should juristic people not have? Should juristic people face criminal consequences for actions or inactions that would be deemed criminal for natural people? If you were going to do it all over again -- how would you distinguish between natural and artificial?

 

[muffler dragon]

Wow. That's a whopper to think about some time. Thank you, Clarity, for sharing this. I'll try to post back with some thoughts. Consider this post my subscription as I definitely want to be in this discussion.

 

[Taosman]

Jurassic people have all the rights of other neanderthals!

 

[Clarity]

Jurassic people have all the rights of other neanderthals!

You know that scene in Quest for Fire where Rae Dawn Chong packs mud on a caveman's injured crotch and then later teaches him how to do it face to face? That was pretty hot, at least back when I was 10 and saw it.

 

[Taosman]

No wackin off, now! :tongue2:

 

[BrutuStrength]

So my questions are simple, really. Should natural and juristic people stand equal under the law? If not, what rights should juristic people not have? Should juristic people face criminal consequences for actions or inactions that would be deemed criminal for natural people? If you were going to do it all over again -- how would you distinguish between natural and artificial?

Yes, and no.

Yes to corporations being respected as entities which can own land, buy goods, hire people, transact business, and be held accountable for their actions (as we've seen through class action lawsuits and such). What we don't want is for any such entities to mask over accountability that truly resides at the level of (a) natural person/people (hello Enron!).

No to corporations being able to vote for public officials and the like. In that same vein, we also don't want such jursistic people being able to hold public office. Such actions can be performed by those members which ultimately comprise each respective corporate entity. And while corporations can be penalized (primarily in terms of financial penalties), ultimate accountability resides at the level of the indiviual(s) that implemented any harmful action(s) against other persons and/or essentially broke laws (for either additional financial penalties, and/or serving jail time).

It seems pretty straight forward to me, in that absolute equality between natural and juristic people is undeserving.

In terms of how would I distinguish between them if starting over... having not given it much thought... let common sense prevail. Understand that such "persons" (natural and juristic) are inherently different, and that each class of person is decidedly different, with respects to needs and abilities. For instance, juristic people need not worry about physical deaths, whereas natural people need not worry about hostile take overs (at least not people that remain single ). Each of these classes of people have different needs and concerns, and thereby should be treated/respected differently. Let them be treated/regarded similarly where they do share common needs (land ownership, able to transact business, etc) but treat/regard them differently where it makes sense too (no voting for public officials, inability to hold public office, etc).

 

[Clarity]

Yes, and no.

Yes to corporations being respected as entities which can own land, buy goods, hire people, transact business, and be held accountable for their actions (as we've seen through class action lawsuits and such). What we don't want is for any such entities to mask over accountability that truly resides at the level of (a) natural person/people (hello Enron!).

What of some basics, like freedom of speech? Should we stand as equals? Or the fact that a corporation that conducts itself criminally, may only suffer civil sanctions?

I find it rather amazing that all of this was decided without argument. I used the words 'clever theft' on purpose, even though, if it was such, the justice involved was complicit.

 

[stxbuck]

It seems to me the courts in America have done a pretty good job w/ this conundrum, w/ the rule that someone must prove actual harm under a law or action to have standing. If this was not the case, every special interest group under the sun would tie up every law forever, instead of being forced to go fishing for test cases.
As far as coporations go, "corporate pleas"-which are not civil settlements- allow for a lot of face saving, while acknowleging that laws were broken-but, generally, not for the individual enrichment of individuals. In Cincinnati, in the past few years, both the Archdiocese of Cincinnati-for hiding info about pedophile priests, and the Hustler store-for selling what the Hustler store sells-have taken corporate pleas, w/ Archbioshop Pilarczyk and Jimmy Flynt appearing in court to plead guilty of behalf of their organization. The community seems to be satisfied w/ these outcomes, as opposed to cases such as Enron, where it was obvious that the criminal conduct was enriching individuals through their larcenous/fraudulent/incompetent actions.
Everyone has their owns views and visions of rights, responsibilities, and so forth, but, in general, what holds society together is a belief that you may not transgress on anothers person or property-physical or financial. Legislating for theoretical individuals could lead to an Orwellian future sooner, rather than later. Even Martin Luther King endorsed this line of thought when he said "A law can't make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching(could be killing or harming) me, and that's still pretty important".

 

[MaxBuck]

It is particularly fitting that a website that features vbets would support discussion of vrights for vpeople.

 

[BrutuStrength]

What of some basics, like freedom of speech? Should we stand as equals? Or the fact that a corporation that conducts itself criminally, may only suffer civil sanctions?

Sure, juristic people should be afforded free speech as well. The difference that they'll find is that they're in the public eye moreso than the average natural person. And that by saying something offensive to any population of naturals, it will very likely negatively impact their perception amongst naturals and hurt their business. That's why most businesses have specific PR departments, and further require their employees to direct calls from outside groups (news media and the like) to forward them to the PR group.

Again, the corporation is only going to be subject to civil sanctions as we can't put a non-physical entity in jail. That's ultimate accountability still needs to reside at the level of the natural person. And when sanctions are steep enough, it can effectively cripple a business, and/or such a business could even be forced to break up (ala Ma Bell for monopolization).

It is particularly fitting that a website that features vbets would support discussion of vrights for vpeople.

Ain't that the [vcensored]ing truth!

 

[Clarity]

Sure, juristic people should be afforded free speech as well. The difference that they'll find is that they're in the public eye moreso than the average natural person. And that by saying something offensive to any population of naturals, it will very likely negatively impact their perception amongst naturals and hurt their business. That's why most businesses have specific PR departments, and further require their employees to direct calls from outside groups (news media and the like) to forward them to the PR group.

Again, the corporation is only going to be subject to civil sanctions as we can't put a non-physical entity in jail. That's ultimate accountability still needs to reside at the level of the natural person. And when sanctions are steep enough, it can effectively cripple a business, and/or such a business could even be forced to break up (ala Ma Bell for monopolization).

Fair enough, let's shift gears to the Hand Rule then.

Are there any circumstances in which you (or anyone) feel it's appropriate that a juristic person acts or fails to act in such a way that may reasonably cause loss of life to natural people? An auto manufacturer is the obvious example to reach for here, so I will. Let's say Chadongcha Cars learns that, much like the Pinto, there's a flaw in their design that results in an explosion when the car is rear-ended at just the 'right' angle and speed. They determine, ultimately, that this will happen to so few people, that the cost to compensate those families for their injuries and deaths is negligible when compared to the cost of recalling the entire line and performing invasive repairs or replacements. So it's more economically efficient for Chadongcha Cars to not act, and they stay quiet about the defect. One young family dies as a result over the next 6 months.

Was there an obligation to fix it? Was there an obligation to notify customers? Are they negligent? Civilly? Criminally? Should the highest official in that company who made the ultimate decision face individual charges?

Natural and juristic people act at odds, even as the latter are comprised of the former. If we all accept that juristic people should enjoy some of the rights of the other (even though there wasn't a peep about that in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights -- and it's interesting (a bit) how in some people's eyes a little judicial activism is okay in one place, but the sign of a dangerously activist court elsewhere), how do we balance the rights of a juristic person against the rights of a natural?

 

[BrutuStrength]

Was there an obligation to fix it? Was there an obligation to notify customers? Are they negligent? Civilly? Criminally? Should the highest official in that company who made the ultimate decision face individual charges?

I think, as a matter of progression, we're likely to see more accountability at the natural level, in addition to the juristic level, as we move forward.

Funny thing, your example was largely running through my head as I thought about things for my previous posts. The movie Class Action was an example like you laid out above (perhaps you were thinking about it too). A car manufacturer's bean counters decided it would cost more to recall the vehicles and fix them than it would should they have to pay damages due to lawsuits. The solution, via the movie, was that due to the intentional and calculated way that the company refused to recall the vehicles, after the company lost the lawsuit the amount awarded to the plaintiffs exceeded the company's predicted figures by a large margin. which, as stated previously, could be a way to effectively put a company out of business while providing some amount of justice.

After the Enron incident, I could see where such a scenario would further try to get to the level of the naturals that actually made the decisions to bypass the recalls and safety measures, and to have them prosecuted in criminal court.

Natural and juristic people act at odds, even as the latter are comprised of the former. If we all accept that juristic people should enjoy some of the rights of the other... how do we balance the rights of a juristic person against the rights of a natural?

One current example of this is with regard to employment practices. There are laws that protect naturals against juristics discriminating against them on the basis of age, color, sex, etc. Like other things, this is a fluid balance that will remain so into the future. So the short answer would be, that the balance will be dynamic and change will continue to occur.

That's all I have time for today.