Does this question also equally apply to the opposite side? If an employee got so angry with how you laid them off and treated them afterwards that they decide to do what they can to damage your company?
Cutting access and having security walk them out is more or less security theater. If an employee really wanted to cause damage the odds are they either already have or will still find a way. In this scenario having generous severance and treating them with respect is likely to better defuse the situation than kicking them out the door.
This hypothetical is about what the CEO/company decides to do, not what the employee decides to do. A lot of liability "theater" is not there to prevent issues, it's to cover your ass.
So no, this question doesn't apply equally to the opposite side. An employee does not take responsibility for what the company does. A lot of people wonder why CEOs are paid so much; part of that is simply to take responsibility.
Ironically, a lot of people complain about useless CEOs, but if you asked them to take that responsibility for the pay, they wouldn't take it (note that that responsibility includes things like sweet talking shareholders and giving public statements on short notice on things that could nuke millions of dollars in value and create very real legal liability).
Ah yes, because CEOs often face consequences for their poor decisions. They definitely don't get golden parachutes and move on to a new company when they run a company into the ground.