undefined | Better HN

0 pointsconstantcrying1y ago0 comments

>If they know they face prison if the company plays foul in a major way, they will put pressure on their deputies to change culture.

It is completely ridiculous to criminally prosecute leadership for crimes which happened without their knowing/consent/acknowledgment. It would be a perversion of justice to jail someone because many levels down someone else committed a crime. The best corporate culture does not prevent criminality.

0 comments

cycomanic1y ago

Well what are the ridiculously high salaries for if they don't even take responsibility. I mean parents are liable for their children, so why should a CEO not be made responsible for the culture of the corporation underneath them?

constantcryingOP1y ago

Because that would be a perversion of justice. You can not pay someone to take on criminal liability for crimes they didn't commit and could not have any knowledge of. Just imagine what precedent this would set if it was allowed. If courts would accept that criminal liability can be transferred in exchange of cash, how would the justice system look like?

"Culture" is completely ephemeral and having a court of law determine that the CEO "caused" some change in culture which then caused criminal behavior is ridiculous. This obviously can not be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt".

>I mean parents are liable for their children

Parents do not take on the crimes of their children. They are criminally liable for not overseeing their children's action and/or for not preventing their actions, which is something totally different.

sudosysgen1y ago

The responsibility doesn't come from the money, it comes from being the Chief Executive, with nearly unlimited operational authority. The money would be compensation for liability that would be inherent to their position.

1 more reply

amelius1y ago

So you are saying that in a case like Boeing's the CEO was completely unaware of the shitshow at their company and couldn't have taken appropriate actions?

1 more reply

thoronton1y ago

> Parents do not take on the crimes of their children. They are criminally liable for not overseeing their children's action and/or for not preventing their actions, which is something totally different.

It is not completely different. The CEOs should be liable for not properly overseeing their company and for not preventing the illegal actions of the company they're in charge of.

1 more reply

lupusreal1y ago

Parents are generally not criminally liable for the crimes their kids commit. They might catch some related negligence charges or something, but if little Jimmy decides to rob a 7-11 his mom doesn't get sent to prison for armed robbery.

krisoft1y ago

The way i see it (and here I describe how I think the law should work, not how it works):

If a Boeing engineer has a breakdown and robs a 7-11, the C suite of Boeing is not responsible for that.

If the Boeing engineer murders people in their course of duty because of the incentive structure set up by the C suite then they are responsible for that. How do you prove that? The same way how you prove anything. Lots of discovery which reveals concrete evidence of the C suite setting up and maintaining said incentive structure and then the prosecutorial team describing the connection to a jurry of their peers.

It is the difference between little Jimmy deciding to rob a 7-11 because they are dumb as a rock, vs doing the same because they grown up in an organised crime family.

1 more reply

amelius1y ago

They should be liable by default. But of course people at a lower position can be liable for their own crimes. That is for a court to decide.

constantcryingOP1y ago

That is a perversion of justice and sets unimaginably bad precedent.

ryandrake1y ago

You just keep saying “perversion of justice” over and over as of it is self-evident.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

cycomanic1y ago

constantcryingOP1y ago

>I mean parents are liable for their children

sudosysgen1y ago

1 more reply

amelius1y ago

So you are saying that in a case like Boeing's the CEO was completely unaware of the shitshow at their company and couldn't have taken appropriate actions?

1 more reply

thoronton1y ago

It is not completely different. The CEOs should be liable for not properly overseeing their company and for not preventing the illegal actions of the company they're in charge of.

1 more reply

lupusreal1y ago

krisoft1y ago

The way i see it (and here I describe how I think the law should work, not how it works):

If a Boeing engineer has a breakdown and robs a 7-11, the C suite of Boeing is not responsible for that.

It is the difference between little Jimmy deciding to rob a 7-11 because they are dumb as a rock, vs doing the same because they grown up in an organised crime family.

1 more reply

amelius1y ago

They should be liable by default. But of course people at a lower position can be liable for their own crimes. That is for a court to decide.

constantcryingOP1y ago

That is a perversion of justice and sets unimaginably bad precedent.

ryandrake1y ago

You just keep saying “perversion of justice” over and over as of it is self-evident.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse