Can a Corporation Commit Murder?

I believe that there is little chance for a corporation to commit murder because of the definition set out describing murder. Murder can be classified into two categories, either First Degree Murder or Second Degree Murder. First Degree Murder occurs if the murder was planned and deliberate, if the scheme or design was well thought out and planned. It also occurs if the victim is a law enforcement agent, or if death occurs while certain crimes or offenses to society are being committed. Such as hijacking, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, forcible confinement, and hostage taking. Second Degree Murder is intentionally causing death in all of the circumstances mentioned above.

                It may often be said that a corporation committed murder, if their actions are not that of a reasonable person and if they don’t take the reasonable safety pre-cautions required to ensure maximum safety. There are laws set out stating safety measures which are to be met in order to ensure the safety of employees and product consumers. If a corporation deliberately disobeys those laws and rules, the angered public may say they should be held accountable for their actions and should be charged with murder. There is no “forgetting” a safety regulation or law in a corporation, it is simply neglecting responsibilities.

                Although it is highly unlikely for a corporation to commit murder in the two stated ways above, their negligence is what caused the death. If a corporation sells a product that could potentially be dangerous they are neglecting their responsibility to guarantee safety of their product. That is where I feel the corporation should be charged, yet I feel that the term “murder” is not the correct one to use due to the definition. I am not sure which term I would feel fits more appropriately. But I am sure in my feeling that the responsible corporation should be held reliable and should face consequences for their actions and decisions. If a default product causes the death of an individual the corporation may potentially be found as the causation, meaning that they are the cause of death or injury. In a case against a corporation Product Liability could be brought forward. Product Liability- manufactures, wholesalers, retailers, repairs, or anyone else involved in the distribution of consumer goods may be found liable for negligence if a consumer is injured by a default product.

                A corporation is a structured organization with people at the top and others at the bottom. Regardless of the corporation I feel that the individual at the top should be checking in on the rest of their corporation to guarantee all safety regulations are being met, and they should personally be taking the time to follow through with safety checks. Their presence should be persistent throughout important regulation checks otherwise they could potentially be neglecting their responsibilities that come along with their position. If a corporation is found guilty of negligence and their product was the causation of death, it would be hard to decide which individual should be held reliable. When the public is angry they tend just to blame the corporation as a whole, but I feel that there are specific factors/ levels within the corporation who are at fault and should be blamed.

Auto Theft

People steal vehicles because of the easy opportunistic theft, and because changing the vehicle is easy. After a little work the vehicle is unrecognizable making it seem as though the original vehicle never existed. Generally people who steal vehicles are experienced thieves, those who can make a profit by selling the stolen product to fences for a large sum. Professional car thieves know what they are doing and some of them can break into a vehicle and have it running in less than a minute. If an auto thief is a professional, stealing vehicles can be their mean of only income. There are also those who steal because of the thrill they get, these are generally known as joy riders. Joy riders do not have to be the stereotypical young teenagers; people of all ages are auto thieves. Joy riders end up getting rid of the stole vehicle either by leaving it in a ditch, by lighting it on fire, driving it into rivers, or crashing it while trying to escape from the police.  Others may use the stolen vehicle as an efficient way of getting from point A to point B.

Here is a look at the top ten places in Canada where vehicles are stolen:

Rank	Cities	% Difference with the National Rate
1	Fort McMurray, Alta.	208.95%
2	Joliette, Que.	200.84
3	Surrey, B.C.	175.98
4	Kelowna, B.C.	140.17
5	Brantford, Ont.	132.40
6	Edmonton, Alta.	122.05
7	Grande Prairie, Alta.	117.53
8	Winnipeg, Man.	108.85
9	Langley Township, B.C.	107.05
10	Saskatoon, Sask.	106.83

It is important to remember that anyone could potentially become a victim of car theft, so we should all take extra pre-cautions to prevent car theft from occuring. Common sense is the most important defense against auto thieves. If you leave your valuables out in plain sight in the vehicle or leave your vehicle unlocked you are only asking for a thief to break into your car and steal it. Auto thieves look for opportunistic targets; they do not generally go out of their way to steal a vehicle. A steering wheel lock is a great mechanism to divert an auto thief away from your vehicle. While it is really not that hard to saw off, it appears to be a hurtle against an opportunistic vehicle. Generally a thief is not going to purposely break into a car that clearly has an extra mean of protection, because it makes the job that much harder to accomplish in a short period of time. Parking your car on street with poor lighting or on a street that is often deserted is another way of asking the auto thieves to target your vehicle. Thieves are less likely to target a vehicle that is in a heavily populated well light area.

Here’ a look at the top ten vehicles most commonly stolen in Canada:

1.      2000 Honda Civic SiR 2-door 2.      1999 Honda Civic SiR 2-door 3.      2002 Cadillac Escalade 4-door 4.      2004 Cadillac Escalade 4-door 4WD 5.      2005 Acura RSX Type S 2-door 6.      1997 Acura Integra 2-door 7.      2000 Audi S4 Quattro 4-door AWD 8.      2003 Hummer H2 4-door AWD 9.      2006 Acura RSX Type S 2-door 10.  2004 Hummer H2 4-door AWD

Hypermasculinity

Hypermasculinity is all about men or boys being tough. When a male is tough they are hard to break, and when they are hard to break women flock to them and hang off them. Hypermasculinity is a view of men that males hold. If you are tough, a real “manly man” then you are cool; and when you are cool women want you. The ideas of being tough and hard to break only works for men, as women compete through fashionable looks and gossip.

 Males are taught to be Hypermasculine from an early age. Boys don’t play with dolls or show their emotions, they suck it up, if they are hurt or offended, and punch the other kid. It is seen as being weak for a male to express themselves in a way other than through violence and dominance.  Males compete through violent means, whether it be in a sport or out with friends. The winner is always the toughest. Throughout history males have always been taught the Hypermasculinity ways. The Roman Empire was full of males who were tough warriors unable to be defeated, the Germans were strong males brought up to show their dominance, and the Japanese males were taught they were the only individuals of true importance.

The demeaning nature of men towards women is also part of Hypermasculinity. Because males are “tough” they hold a superior power of women. Women were not seen as being people in Canada until 1931, because males believed that if women were considered as “nothing” they would live a life of passive obedience. Hasn’t the women’s job over history only been to serve and obey her husband? Although that idea has changed over time the theory has never changed in Hypermasculinity. If a male has power over and the obedience of a women he is seen as being tough. When he is tough he is also cool and is expected to have sex with multiple women, to show his social standing.

Males who commit sexual assaults fit into more than one element of Hypermasculinity. They believe in being tough and stating their social standing in a way that is obvious to others. Because they are “tough” they believe they can have any women they desire. And often along with that comes the need to establish their power and authority. Power and authority is not always established male to male, it can also be established male to female. When it is established in that form the male asserts dominance over the female which comes back to being Hypermasculine.  

As a serial killer Clifford Olson was a rat a man who told on others while in prison, he was also a man the police had a hard time tracking down.  While on the loose Olson continuously switched rental cars and maneuvered inexplicable U-turns to keep his followers confused and off his trail. Olson is a sorry excuse for a man as he preyed on young children. By 1981 Olson had killed ten children in southern British Columbia. He would later kill his eleventh victim.  He was arrested August 12 1981, while it was still unknown at that time to the police how many children he had actually murdered. It was not until he was charged with the first degree murder of Judy Kozma on August 18 18981, that Olson gave a full confession. Negotiating with the police Olson offered the location of ten bodies and a freebie for $100 000 on August 21 1981.

It is unknown why Clifford Olson found such pleasure in the torturing of young children. He has never shown remorse towards the families of his victims saying “If I gave a shit about he parents I wouldn’t have killed the kid.” The only explanation he offers up for his actions is saying that he confessed so that he could live with himself. He says he knew what he had done and needed to give back the bodies to their families for a proper Christian burial in order to live with himself. Talking about being able to live with himself or the pain of never seeing his wife and son, Olson shows that he is a despicable man with no regard for human life, as he only cares about himself. 

On December 6 1989 Marc Lepine went on a mass sexist motivated killing spree at the Ecole Polytechnique at the University of Montreal. The six story brick building enrolled about 5000 students at the time of Lepine’s murderous rage. Beneath his sweater Lepine had strapped on a sheath containing a six-inch hunting knife. He also had a lightweight semi-automatic rifle. Lepine went from class room to class room a little after 5pm. randomly choosing his female victims. Lepine had no regard or respect for the females at the University of Montreal as he attached a high-capacity banana clip magazine so he could fire 30 rounds in quick succession. Before Lepine lined up his first victims he shouted “You’re all a bunch of feminists! And I hate feminists!”In twenty minutes Lepine had killed fourteen women, injured ten other women and four men.Lepine turned the gun on himself, leaving a letter in his pocket explaining his actions. 

Marc Lepine stated that he had waited until he had used up his savings (over $750 on the weapon and ammunition) before he could do “his deed,” He wrote that feminists had always ruined his life and in seven years of life there was no joy. “I have decided to stop those shrews dead in their tracks…The feminists always have a talent for enraging me. They want to retain the advantages of being women…while trying to grab those of men…”  Along with his note of explanation Lepine had left a list of names of 19 “radical feminists”; those who were mentioned in newspapers, female police officers and politicians. Lepine had decided that he did not have the time to execute them all so he had instead decided to make one clear statement. A symbolic attack on women everywhere who were trying to get ahead in positions Lepine felt were only suitable for men. 

I believe that there is a chance for situations to occur similar to these two stated cases. Although we would all hope for nothing horrific to happen again in Canada, it is a high hope. There are many people out around us who are mentally disturbed, people who have no regard for human life, people who are unable to receive the professional help they need. There will never be a way to fully stop monstrous people like Clifford Olson and Marc Lepine; because people like that do what they believe needs to be done. They do it in a way that can be difficult to track down and understand.  They do it in a way to purposely hurt others in order to get their point across and to be heard. It is hard to imagine something this horrific happening somewhere near us, but in reality Clifford Olson was near us. And Marc Lepine was near people who thought they were safe as well.