4 ms·
"There is a rational case to make for someone being both fully culpable for wrongdoing while still remaining entitled to bounties they've satisfied." Not reall
by st3v3r 10y ago
"There is a rational case to make for someone being both fully culpable for wrongdoing while still remaining entitled to bounties they've satisfied."
Not really. Throwing them in jail sends the message that whistleblowing is looked down upon, and thus fewer people will do it. If the whistleblower doesn't have immunity from prosecution, the only way for them really to blow the whistle is to confess to a crime.
- tptacek 10y agoIt's not the whistleblowing that's looked down on! It's the knowing and deliberate participation in something you acknowledge is a crime. This guy was extremely culpable for the offenses he participated in (read the other link posted on the thread).
- rhino369 10y agoThat also sets up a precedent where you can engage in criminal behavior as along as you rat your co-conspirators at a later date. Confessing should be considered favorably during settlement, but a get out of jail card in every situation is ridiculous.
- gozur88 10y agoThe mistake he made was implicating himself in a crime without getting the deal first. He should have gone in and said "I can testify to criminal behavior, but only if you'll give me immunity." That's probably what his bosses did.
- tptacek 10y agoIt should be either-or. Either you take the time and the money, or you get off with a warning and don't make a dime from the IRS.
- st3v3r 10y agoWhy? Without that money, what's the incentive to blow the whistle? Not to mention that most whistleblowers are blacklisted, so they have a difficult time finding work after doing so. If they don't get that money, they'll likely end up under a bridge somewhere.