6 ms·
Generally speaking, when you murder someone you are punished for it. I'm not entirely sure why this would confuse you. If we didn't punish them, there would b
by tw04 7y ago
Generally speaking, when you murder someone you are punished for it. I'm not entirely sure why this would confuse you. If we didn't punish them, there would be no deterrent for the next person to kill people when it's convenient to do so. It's part of what makes us civilized.
Did the CEO PERSONALLY kill them? No, but the claim for outlandish executive pay is executives get paid like they do because they have "all the responsibility". Every time the responsibility bird comes calling, they seem to claim they should have none. Cake and eating and such.
- nicoburns 7y ago> the claim for outlandish executive pay is executives get paid like they do because they have "all the responsibility". Seems like it might be better not to pay them such ridiculous amounts of money in the first place.
- sneak 7y agoCompanies don’t generally try to spend money they don’t need to. I have yet to see evidence that the oft-complained-about high tier executive pay in the US is artificially inflated and isn’t just market conditions pricing the work.
- lexs 7y agoBut "companies" aren't a conscious being by itself, they are made up of or rather steered by high tier executives right?
- bumby 7y agoHow would you define "artificially inflated"? I.e., inflated against what? Overpaid compared to...average worker pay, GDP, stock market gains...?
- buzzerbetrayed 7y agoIf you pay a CEO $3,000,000/year, because otherwise he would leave and get paid that at another company (making that other company more successful than your company) then you aren't "artificially inflating" his pay. You are paying him what the market demands.
- bumby 7y agoI don’t disagree but I think the argument you would typically find is that the value they bring is as symmetrical with pay. I can find someone on my parents couch who can’t be hired for $100k/yr. That doesn’t mean they are worth that much to the economy
- ryanlol 7y agoIs it really so hard to believe that this could be an organizational issue where no single individual is culpable enough to deserve a custodial sentence? It really feels like many commenters here are just after some weird revenge porn.
- mox1 7y agoif you create a business culture where your product ends up killing people, then yea I would like our government to have a good hard look at the people responsible for that culture.
- ClumsyPilot 7y agoHow many people does an organisation "with the right culture" have to kill before there need to be consequences? I think a hundred is rather large number
- ryanlol 7y agoWho’s arguing against consequences for the organization?
- ClumsyPilot 7y agoLike what kind of consequences, and why do toy think that will be successful in preventing further disasters?
- alistairSH 7y agoThere are two possible responses to your suggestion... 1. The company has an inherently bad culture and should be shuttered. 2. The leader of the company is responsible for that bad culture and should be punished (in some way). 1 is a non starter, because Boeing is "too big to fail". We can argue about the correct punishment for 2, but "go home with $60 million" probably isn't sufficient.
- mokus 7y ago
- tobib 7y agoIANAL but for it to be "murder" there usually needs to be premeditation so I think the comparison is not appropriate in this case.
- dlp211 7y agoThis is wrong and why not only multiple degrees of murder charges exist, but multiple different charges exist for homicide, eg murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- cco 7y agoReplace with whatever term you prefer; I think the message is still true regardless of the term lay people use. I don't think anybody would complain if the CEO at the time was charged with 300+ crimes of some sort, manslaughter, gross negligence, murder, whatever. On a jury I'd be pretty lenient to the prosecution in this matter if they could find evidence that the CEO was aware of the calculus taking place, i.e. let's cut some corners with our regulatory capture so we can ship this plane more quickly and make more money, it is at that point that premeditation for me seems apt.
- Voloskaya 7y ago> IANAL Indeed.
- 8bitsrule 7y agoSo ... put it before a jury and let them decide. Truth, Justice, and the American Way.
- chrisseaton 7y ago> Generally speaking, when you murder someone you are punished for it. I'm not entirely sure why this would confuse you. Right... but why always prison? Why's it always 'who's going to prison for this'? And the way it's written 'someone should be in prison', 'why isn't anyone in prison' it looks like nobody cares much who goes to prison, just has to be someone. And it's never a case of 'this person should be tried carefully'. It's always just 'PRISON'. Overall, seems like you want to find someone - anyone - drag them out of bed - put them in prison immediately, and you think that'll make something better somehow.
- QuercusMax 7y agoThat's not why we want someone to go to prison. It's to send a message to the next company that decides to cut corners. If there are no consequences, then bad behavior will continue to happen.
- chrisseaton 7y ago...but again, why prison specifically? Why do you need prison to achieve what you want? Why's that the first and only thing you reach for? And why are you calling for the punishment not the trial?
- kelnos 7y agoBecause the court of public opinion has already ruled. It's not entirely fair, but I don't think it's entirely unjustified, either. I'm not convinced fines work to actually punish rich executives. Likely they have liability insurance that will cover a lot of it, and golden parachutes will cover the rest. The deprivation of freedom caused by prison is pretty unique. Do you have suggestions for alternative punishments that actually punish the target, and serve as a disincentive for other corporate malfeasance?
- orestarod 7y agoDo you have a better way to punish someone in mind? As stated, small fines make no difference.