IN TIMES PAST VIOLATIONS OF HEALTH AND SAFETY LAWS USUALLY MEANT EITHER A REPRIMAND OR A FINE FOR THE TOP CORPORATE OFFICIALS. THE FINE WAS USUALLY PAID BY THE COMPANY AND WAS VIEWED AS A ROUTINE COST OF DOING BUSINESS. FRUSTRATION WITH THE LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE CORPORATE STRUCTURE HAS LED PROSECUTORS TO DEMAND THE JAILING OF TOP COMPANY OFFICIALS RESPONSIBLE FOR VIOLATIONS OF ANTIPOLLUTION LAWS, HEALTH AND SAFETY LAWS, OR WORKER SAFETY LAWS. CASES IN WHICH JAIL TERMS WERE SOUGHT OR ACTUALLY IMPOSED ARE REVIEWED. IN THE UNITED STATES THE ACME MARKETS, INC., CASE REACHED THE U.S SUPREME COURT (U.S. V. JOHN R. PARK, 1975). IN THIS CASE THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE FOOD CHAIN COULD BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR RATS IN A COMPANY FOOD STORAGE WAREHOUSE. THE PRESIDENT WAS FINED $250, BUT THE PRINCIPLE OF ACCOUNTABILITY HAS HAD FAR-REACHING IMPLICATIONS. OFFICIALS OF COMPANIES CHARGED WITH BANKING IRREGULARITIES OR PRICE-FIXING SCHEMES HAVE ACTUALLY SERVED PRISON TERMS. IN FRANCE IT IS COMMON TO JAIL TOP OFFICIALS FOR VIOLATIONS OF LAWS RELATING TO WORKER SAFETY. SIMILAR CASES HAVE OCCURRED IN GREAT BRITAIN. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THIS TREND IS A NATURAL OUTGROWTH OF PUBLIC FRUSTRATION WITH CORPORATE INDIFFERENCE TO PUBLIC SAFETY AND HEALTH. IT ALSO REFLECTS A CHANGE IN THE BALANCE OF POWER IN THE UNITED STATES WITH CONSUMERS AND MINORITIES ACHIEVING GREATER POLITICAL CLOUT. HOWEVER, IT IS ALSO SUGGESTED THAT FEAR OF LIABILITY WILL LEAD TO MORE CONSERVATIVE MANAGEMENT STYLES AND SLOWER ECONOMIC GROWTH. THE PROBLEM OF ACHIEVING A BALANCE FOR COMPETING INTERESTS IS DISCUSSED. (GLR)