How do you define "full consequences"?

Corporate death penalty plus prison time for relevant people. How wide to cast the net would have to be worked out.

I thought we, the liberals, are mostly aligned that non-violent climes should not be punishable by prison time.

I have never seen a stat or survey that suggests that.

That's been my general observation. I see the following hypocrisy: Murderers and violent crimes should require rehabilitation, better lives in the prison and discussion here tends to be more around pro-forgiveness ideology; whilst I also see liberals suggesting that politicians and corporate leaders should be punished by prison terms.

Apart from my own observation, non-punishment of non-violent crimes is a cornerstone of liberal criminal justice reform (Prop 57, 20, etc.).

I am sorry I wasn't more clear. When I suggest prison time I mean in a rehabilitative facility. And that should be for all crimes that we demand prison time for. I am not for retributive justice.

Which crimes do you think the "relevant people" should be imprisoned for?

I don't think or laws currently have a crime for it, maybe negligence causing harm?

Are you sure that such an offence wouldn't be so absurdly unspecific that almost anyone could end up being tried under it?

Whatever would have happened had their PR department not intervened.

But since it's natural to react in such a way, who's to say that what you're suggesting wouldn't be more than the full consequences?

Just as we have lawyers in court, why shouldn't facebook get to say their side? Artificially limiting their ability to justify their actions doesn't seem reasonable.