5 ms·

Agreed. Some prison time seems warranted but 7 years seems harsh, even considering what he did was very bad and harmful to a lot of people. (But Americans simpl

• zorked 9y ago
  "Volkswagen Emissions Scandal Could Cause 1,200 More Premature Deaths" (from vehicles in Germany alone!) Seven years is a very light sentence for this. I would guess that sort of damage makes him easily a top 1% criminal. Of the entire world. [1] https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/volkswagen-deaths_us_58b99ff0e4b0b99894173edd https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/volkswagen-deaths_us_58...
  • credit_guy 9y ago
    “could cause N deaths” is very different from “have caused N deaths beyond any reasonable doubt”.
    • wellboy 9y ago
      Could cause 1200 deaths is definitely will cause 10 deaths and probably will definitely cause 300 deaths. Probably you mean, has caused x deaths directly instead of has caused x deaths indirectly?
      • credit_guy 9y ago
        No. To be considered a criminal, you need to be found guilty of a crime, and for that the prosecutors need to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that you committed the act.
        • andrepd 9y ago
          It is proven that he was complicit in faking emissions tests, and it is proven that those extra emissions will lead to the premature deaths 100s of people.
          • koenigdavidmj 9y ago
            That’s quite simply not how the law works. To convict someone of murder, you need a direct causal link between VW’s actions (as opposed to another car company’s actions) and a particular person dying. Statistics games don’t cut it.
            • yellow_postit 9y ago
              In a case like this maybe statistics do need to play a larger role.
              • koenigdavidmj 9y ago
                We call that an ex post facto law.
            • andrepd 9y ago
              Thank you for the lesson, but I never said the man should be guilty of murder. I'm merely stating that since his actions lead to the death or injury of hundreds or thousands of people he should be duly penalised to dissuade future would-be law breakers.
        • TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
          Right. It needs to be proved beyond all _reasonable_ doubt, not beyond _all_ doubt. It's reasonable to believe that this person committed a crime.
• staticelf 9y ago
  He literally helped trick people to think they emitted less than they were, probably leading to a higher emission rate overall. That effects everyone on the entire planet. I think committing a crime that affects ever single human life should be considered a very serious crime. That should lead to very serious punishments. I do not think the punishment was harsh.
  • viridian 9y ago
    Seven years in prison for any person who ever got in a body spray fight as a kid/teen! Seriously though, scale of impact only matters in the context of the weight of the impact, otherwise lots of preposterous things would be dire crimes.
    • staticelf 9y ago
      Obviously you're missing the most critical words of my sentences. This effects all of humanity, including you and me. Even if your comparison is utterly silly, a spray fight would not emit more than it would otherwise since you still have manufactured the bottle already. When lying about emissions people tend to get taxed lower for the lower emissions (at least in many countries in the EU) and also people rather buy a car with a low emission than a car with a higher emission rate.
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• croon 9y ago
  Should we jail all police officers who fail to catch every criminal instead of disincentivizing crime, too?
  • bambax 9y ago
    We should demote police officers who run a search warrant and fail to find an obvious piece of evidence that was right in front of them because they didn't think of opening a door.
    • contravariant 9y ago
      Let's not take it out on the people who did what they were required to do by law.
• InternetOfStuff 9y ago
  > The ones who are getting off easily, IMHO, are the regulators. ...and the politicians who are supposed to oversee them. I agree 100%. > This is utter intellectual laziness It's not. Of course this was done under a laughably thin guise of impartiality ("if we use real-world tests, we would introduce an unfair element of randomness"), but in truth it was clear to anyone who cared that the regulations are deliberately softened to make it easy for manufacturers. Boring example: the European driving cycle only defines measurements up to a top speed of 130km/h. So it's legal for manufacturers to ignore regulations from 131km/h onwards. Why not enforce adherence up to the rated top speed? Because... uh... > How is it possible that it never occurred to anyone there, to test cars in real-world conditions It has occurred to many people. Manufacturers have fought it tooth and nail -- I wonder why. Even in Germany, which all but depends on its automotive industry, this is widely considered a disgrace (except, of course, in the circles relevant to the inception of regulations). In fact, many people consider it a strategic mistake to go soft on the German auto industry, allowing them to fall behind. I'm sure it'll bite them. But only after the current politicians and CEOs have left office, so why should they care? Grrrr.
  • zardo 9y ago
    >Boring example: the European driving cycle only defines measurements up to a top speed of 130km/h. So it's legal for manufacturers to ignore regulations from 131km/h onwards. Just because it's not on the cycle, does not mean regulations don't apply. It means they are not verifying compliance.
    • InternetOfStuff 9y ago
      Yep, but being in compliance with the regulations is defined as being in compliance with the cycle (I agree it's dumb).
      • zardo 9y ago
        Ah, well I haven't read the euro regs, but that's not how it works in the US or Canada.