--r---

ErHrcsnlto Bustruess

rharcan lessena person'smoral responsibility depending9".,h: severiryof the

,r;;r,;. Midgating factt-rrs i.clude (a)iircurnstanccstSat minirnizeb'.rtdo not com-
pletr,:lyrelroye a person"s invoivementi,r an act (the-"eaffecrtlre clegreeto wfiich thc
or helpedto causethe wrongfulinjury),(b) circ*rnstarlces that
i.runr.,acruallyca'used doing
lea'e a personu^certainbni ,rot altogerher. unsureabourwhat ire or sheis
circumstances-that makeir riifficult
(theseaffectthe personskn.-rwledge)iand.(c)
t'r*,ro, impossibieforihe person"toavoidcloing it itheseaffer:tthe person'sfree
-rvrongdoing
dependingon a fourtlr
rvill).Thesecanlesseha ferso'rsresp.,$ibiliryfbr
'tb ciaiify tirese, we can discusseachof them
factor:the seriousn"r,o'f ,h. wrong.
in rurn.
responsibiliry canbc mitigrted,byciicrrrnstallces that dinrinish
Firl;t.e person,s
or brought about au injury'A'tt
thc person,.s activcrn'olvementrn the act that caused
b)'knovringly drarvrng up
rrlgiincer ltav coni;ibuteto all unsxfeprodr:ct.for example,
thc ftlrure iniuries' In
rlesign.n/'l tltu, beingacdvelViiivoivctlin c'rusing
rlic r-rns;iic
in sor'ebociy elsel Ccsign
contrasr, r;e engi*cer.'i,ry5c rrir.. uitite 'nsafefeanrr:es
passrvej,vscirndbv ,Joing
r.,,itl.,,rut anl,ttrir,gaboirt it beca'use "tl,a[\ not l]l]' icl;'" ['n
b,"Lt

s I{ nri,tnal s emicopt
[,{/a ctor h{ oyally Resp otzsibIe?
d;u, t-;r

i esi )ensi bi efor i t. N ati onalS erni conductor' schair -

few years ago, the U.S. Depar:tmentof De-
nrarrfelt Ciff.erentlln"Vy'etotally tiisagreewith the De-
f ens ec h a rg e dtl ra t N a ti o n a lS e m i c o q ductor
fense Departnlent'sproposal' We have relroatecily
had s o l d th e d e p a rtme n t c o mo i l te r part$
stated :l l at w e accept rcsponsi bi l i tyas a corrrpa ny
wittrouttesting them properly and then had falsified stanCby that
[cnl y] anclw e steadfastl yconti nueto
i t s r ec or dsin c r d e r to h i d e th e fra u d ' T h e ' c c rnputer
stittenlent."Accordingto the chairrnan,the corpc'ra-
par lswer e ins t a i l e di n s h i p s , p i a n e s ,w e a p o ns' and
ticn and not its members was responsiblefor these
no
nuc ! earbom bs a ro u n d th e w o ri d a n d s o c c /ul d criminalacts.
longer be tracked cio'arn'An efficial cif the Deparl-
rnentof Defensewas quoteCas sayingthat if a com-
pc nent was c ie fe c ti v ea n d m a i fu rrc ti o n e d ," W e' re
talk ing about li v e s . Yo u c o r-r!chla v e a mi s s i i e that Who is right in this clispute,NationalSemi'
l*1*{
wout d er r c lup in C l e v e l a n di n s te a do f th e i n tei nde' d conductor or the Depanmentof Defense? i'Li

target." Expiainyoui answer.

A lt houghN a ti o n a lS e m i c o n d trc towr a s i ndi cteci 2 W hat are the practi calconsequencesof
p**d
tl
:and
fined for the crime as a corpr:ration,no irrdividu-
any acgeptingthe positio;rof the Department
alswithin the company were ever cltargedwitlr
ob' of Defense?Of acceptingthe position of
crimesin the case.The Deparlment cf Defense ln light of these
NationalSernicondustor? li
jec t edt hat s inc e " a c o rp o ra ti rrna c ts o n l y through
and practicalconsequences, which positiondo s
ir , nt ploy *us a n d o ffi c e rs ," th e e m p l o y r; es you think societYshould adoPt?
' *unug" r , who n ra k e u p th e c o m p a ri y a n d
w ho r"T5
: " ponic ipat edin th e c ri me s h o u l d h a v e b e en trel d
p' 1 and "l'lationaiSerniPleadsGt'tilty
,,ff
sourcer ow Testswere Fakedt:: at liational," san.lostt lvlercuryNews'ltJuno 1984'
1984'p' 'l'
;;;r;;t;,; san Josettte,iur,' "s,7lr4;rrch