This paper is aimed at examining the notorious case of Ford Pinto. In particular, it is necessary to discuss the legal claims made by the representative of Ford Motor Company. Overall, these people wanted to make sure that the corporation could not be charged with a homicide. This task was critical for minimizing the potential losses of this organization. In turn, the court disputed some of these claims. These are the main questions that should be discussed more closely.
The lawyers of Ford Motor Company made several arguments in order to defend this corporation in the court. In particular, they noticed that the organization could not be charged with a homicide (Braswell, 2014, p. 388). In their opinion, this accusation could be applicable only to a human being, but not to an organization (Cullen et al., 2006). This is one of the conceptual arguments that they put forward. This claim was important because these lawyers wanted to make sure that the company was not accused of homicide (Holman & Quinn, 1996, p..32). Provided that this organization had been found guilty, it would have incurred considerable losses (Bailey. 2004). This is one of the details that can be identified since it is critical for understanding the strategies of these lawyers.
Additionally, the representatives of this organization argued that the actions of the company should be judged according to the standards of federal law. In their view, federal law took precedence over state law. In this way they tried to ensure that the company was judged according to the legal norms which were more acceptable to this corporation. Additionally, they said that the court could not apply an ex post facto law to this organization. In other words, they argued that the company could not be accused of activities that had been legal before the law was implemented. They said that the management manufactured Ford Pinto before the changes in the criminal change were accepted. Thus, they argued that from a legal standpoint, Ford Motor Company did not commit any crime, and possible accusations were illegitimate. These are the main aspects that can be distinguished.
Overall, some of these arguments were not accepted by the court. In particular, the court noted that according to the criminal code of Indiana, a person could be charged with reckless homicide. In this case, the word person is not related only to a human being; it can also be applicable to an organization (Cullen et al., 2006). This is one of the details that should be considered. Therefore, this corporation could not dismiss criminal charges. Additionally, the judges ruled that the federal law did not have precedence over the state law. Finally, the court argued that Ford could be prosecuted for not recalling cars which had considerable defects. Therefore, this company was still open to criminal charges. Therefore, in many cases, it is rather difficult to demonstrate the connection between a white-collar crime and its long-term consequences (Benson & Simpson, 2009). This is one of the challenges that should be taken into account.
This discussion suggests that companies should find ways of protecting their interests in the court; otherwise they can incur substantial losses. Yet, at the same time, governmental institutions should make sure that corporation and other businesses act in a responsible way. These are the main arguments can be put forward.
Reference List
Bailey, F. (2004). Famous American Crimes and Trials: 1981-2000. Boston, MA: Praeger.
Benson, M., & Simpson, S. (2009). White Collar Crime: An Opportunity Perspective. New York, NY: Routledge.
Braswell, M. (2014). Justice, Crime, and Ethics. New York, NY Elsevier.
Cullen, F., Cavendar, C., Maakestad, W., & Benson, M. (2006). Corporate Crime Under Attack. New York, NY: Anderson.
Holman, J., & Quinn, J. (1996), Criminal justice: principles and perspectives. New York, NY: West Pub. Co.