5 ms·

Just because 'that is the way things are done' doesn't make it right. You (the hypothetical you, not the real you) are responsible for your own actions. The co

Just because 'that is the way things are done' doesn't make it right. You (the hypothetical you, not the real you) are responsible for your own actions. The company doesn't control how you act, you do. It's fair enough that the company is held accountable, but you should be equally held accountable for willful negligence, gross misconduct, unprofessional conduct etc. etc. That's on you. Just because this prosecutor is a Government official, doesn't immediately remove his culpability, nor his accountability. He was wilfully negligent and ruined an innocent man's life. The Government didn't do that, he did that. It should be on him to fix it. He should be held accountable to the extent of his means to make it right. If it is beyond his means to make it right, it should then fall to the Government to provide the shortfall.

harryh 11y ago
There is ample psychological research that people essentially surrender there sense of self when acting as part of a larger organization. The incentives and pressures imposed by the organization are generally far more relevant to behavior than any individual motives. Think about this individual case. Did Ken Anderson end up in this prison because the prosecutor was personally out to get him? I don't think so. I think he ended up in prison because of a system that is "tough on crime" and is designed to heavily incentivize high conviction rates sometimes to the extent that it produces wrongful convictions.
- balabaster 11y ago
  If you are "incentivized" to do something you otherwise wouldn't by an undercover cop, you're still considered guilty of the crime, and doubly so because you were caught red handed in the act, unless of course you can prove entrapment, which is extremely difficult ... when you are doing something wrong, and you know it, even if you are being pressured by those above you to do that, you still know it's wrong. This is why we have whistleblower protection and this is also why soldiers can be court-marshalled for following orders that they know to be illegal. Did he convict an innocent man due to his own wrongdoing and did he knowingly withhold evidence? Clearly. Did he prove that he was coerced into this behavior in some way, thus proving entrapment and absolving himself of any guilt in this matter? If he had, it's doubtful he would've been fined and sentenced to jail time and community service, ergo, I'd say he did not. So he did something wrong, he did so knowingly, even if he had "surrendered his sense of self" to the institution, he is still guilty of wrongdoing that destroyed another mans life - by the very same argument that the entrapped would have to prove that the entrapment led him to behave this way. What's the difference?
  - harryh 11y ago
    A prosecutor is part of an institution for years that, by default, it's reasonable to assume has some culpability for the crime. Someone caught by an undercover cop is interacting with that cop for the first time. For this reason, by default, the cop is not assumed to have culpability.

harryh 11y ago

There is ample psychological research that people essentially surrender there sense of self when acting as part of a larger organization. The incentives and pressures imposed by the organization are generally far more relevant to behavior than any individual motives. Think about this individual case. Did Ken Anderson end up in this prison because the prosecutor was personally out to get him? I don't think so. I think he ended up in prison because of a system that is "tough on crime" and is designed to heavily incentivize high conviction rates sometimes to the extent that it produces wrongful convictions.

balabaster 11y ago
If you are "incentivized" to do something you otherwise wouldn't by an undercover cop, you're still considered guilty of the crime, and doubly so because you were caught red handed in the act, unless of course you can prove entrapment, which is extremely difficult ... when you are doing something wrong, and you know it, even if you are being pressured by those above you to do that, you still know it's wrong. This is why we have whistleblower protection and this is also why soldiers can be court-marshalled for following orders that they know to be illegal. Did he convict an innocent man due to his own wrongdoing and did he knowingly withhold evidence? Clearly. Did he prove that he was coerced into this behavior in some way, thus proving entrapment and absolving himself of any guilt in this matter? If he had, it's doubtful he would've been fined and sentenced to jail time and community service, ergo, I'd say he did not. So he did something wrong, he did so knowingly, even if he had "surrendered his sense of self" to the institution, he is still guilty of wrongdoing that destroyed another mans life - by the very same argument that the entrapped would have to prove that the entrapment led him to behave this way. What's the difference?
- harryh 11y ago
  A prosecutor is part of an institution for years that, by default, it's reasonable to assume has some culpability for the crime. Someone caught by an undercover cop is interacting with that cop for the first time. For this reason, by default, the cop is not assumed to have culpability.