9 ms·

So anyone at Boeing going to jail for killing 346 people?

by RachelF 6y ago

Trias11 6y ago
No one who has $2.5B is going to jail for anything.
- lallysingh 6y ago
  Martha Stewart? But that was securities fraud, the only true crime.
  - vageli 6y ago
    > Martha Stewart? But that was securities fraud, the only true crime. I don't think Martha Stewart is a billionaire.
    - ineedasername 6y ago
      She's > 600 million. At that level, I'm not sure there's a useful distinction between her level & billionaire
  - blazor 6y ago
    that was lying to the FBI actually
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    "The charge is bank robbery. Now, my caddie's chauffeur informs me that a bank is a place where people put money that isn't properly invested. Therefore, robbing a bank is tantamount to that most heinous of crimes, theft of money."
  - floxy 6y ago
    >In March 2004, Stewart was found guilty of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and two counts of lying to a federal investigator. Her securities fraud charge was dismissed. https://www.thestreet.com/lifestyle/martha-stewart-net-worth-15064812 https://www.thestreet.com/lifestyle/martha-stewart-net-worth...
  - paulmd 6y ago
    The one thing that will absolutely send you straight to jail 100% of the time is playing games with rich people's money.
- m1sta_ 6y ago
  Fines like this typically punish shareholders and lower level employees (via restructuring in response to a need to find budget for the fine).
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Fines like this typically punish shareholders Good. That should motivate shareholders to assure that they can hold management of firms they invest in accountable. > and lower level employees Which is regrettable, but I’m not sure how any form of corporate sanction could avoid that.
    - entangledqubit 6y ago
      You could have the fines be "heavily" pulled out of compensation packages for the higher ups who actually have the power to change the organization... but then they'd probably just leave and screw up some other place? Do boards generally try to claw back compensation in these sorts of situations? (Just as they have been doing in some of the recent cases involving financial shenanigans.)
  - deepsun 6y ago
    Boeing belongs to the USA, so US citizens will take the punishment then. Am I right?
    - blendergeek 6y ago
      Boeing is a publicly traded company based in the USA. That is different from being owned by the USA. Amtrak (which provided passenger rail service in the USA) is owned by the US Federal Government. Boeing on the other hand is owned by a multitude of individuals like you and me and probably a good number hedgefunds.
      - m463 6y ago
        Meanwhile, Airbus... I've always heard the French Government supports it, but it's hard to see exactly how. and something interesting I just noticed: "In 2015, Airbus Group said it was establishing an R&D center and venture capital fund in Silicon Valley."
csours 6y ago
Who do you think should? An engineer who worked on the system? A manager? What law was broken? If you were in their position, how would you know you were breaking the law? Diffuse responsibility is a real problem. 'Teaching to the test' is a real problem. Normalizing risk is a real problem. Blaming individuals is very satisfying, and it's very easy to do with hindsight, but if you want large complex systems to work better, you have to get over individual blame. I'm not saying it's easy, and I'm not saying that we should stop looking for law-breakers, but I am saying that punishment will not lead to better outcomes in the absence of other positive actions.
- fgonzag 6y ago
  I'd start with any one who decided not to ground the planes and deflected responsibility a soon as the first crash happened. They have direct responsibility over the second crash. The I'd go over all the certification process. Any person who concealed information or misled in an official capacity goes to jail. That's the whole point of requiring titled engineers signatures. The buck stops with them.
  - jvanderbot 6y ago
    They were very likely assured by their program managers that the crash was a fluke, presented with convincing test data, and pressured by their bosses, the board, etc etc. These things rarely happen by individual malfeasance. They are part of a system of small mistaken assumptions that compound into big lies.
    - aprdm 6y ago
      I agree with you but out of curiosity what do you suggest as a solution ? You believe all we need is the fine and then the company goes under ? If that's true then all the individuals who failed could just as easily go to another company and repeat their failures. For doctors a failure can make their license get revoked (even tho it doesn't seem to happen very often in practice). Wonder if there could be something similar but indeed it is very hard to find "a person to blame", maybe the CEO? CTO? :)
KorematsuFred 6y ago
Constant news around this bothered me deeply. Someone admits they committed fraud and 346 people died but pays a small sum to get out of the mess without jail time for anyone ? A lot of people say this is bad and these corporations are too powerful and we need someone like Bernie sanders to teach them a lesson. A closer scrutiny reveals exactly the opposite. It is the government that is too powerful, government tries to open an investigation with an explicit objective of jailing the executive. At some point Boeing has to ask how much it stands to lose if the executive goes to jail. Even though the probability is low, the DOJ has long arms and more resources to harass Boeing. $2.5B is not a fine but a bribe that an all powerful DOJ has extracted from Boeing. $2.5B is still lot of money and 346 deaths is even bigger disaster for Boeing. Boeing did not benefit from 346 deaths on other hand it suffered massive losses. A selfish and greedy company like Boeing have far greater incentives to course correct rather than DOJ or US government. Remember how USA bombed countries while making completely fraudulent claims about WMD ? Who went to jail for that ?
- ineedasername 6y ago
  You're basically saying the fact that the government can investigate a thing is proof that the government is too powerful. I'm not sure where you get the idea that an investigation was opened with the specific purpose of jailing an executive: I don't see any indication that was the case, and just about anyone in or outside of government could have predicted before the investigation that no executive would go to jail over this.
  - KorematsuFred 6y ago
    > You're basically saying the fact that the government can investigate a thing is proof that the government is too powerful. Not at all. If government could actually investigate and prove charges and jail Boeing CEO would be the sign of an effective government. The fact that it simple files charges, does a phony investigation and settles for a very low bribe for the deaths of my loved ones is the proof that we are dealing with a mafia and not a government of people.
- arcticbull 6y ago

So anyone at Boeing going to jail for killing 346 people?

Trias11 6y ago

No one who has $2.5B is going to jail for anything.

lallysingh 6y ago
Martha Stewart? But that was securities fraud, the only true crime.
- vageli 6y ago
  > Martha Stewart? But that was securities fraud, the only true crime. I don't think Martha Stewart is a billionaire.
  - ineedasername 6y ago
    She's > 600 million. At that level, I'm not sure there's a useful distinction between her level & billionaire
- blazor 6y ago
  that was lying to the FBI actually
- arcticbull 6y ago
  "The charge is bank robbery. Now, my caddie's chauffeur informs me that a bank is a place where people put money that isn't properly invested. Therefore, robbing a bank is tantamount to that most heinous of crimes, theft of money."
- floxy 6y ago
  >In March 2004, Stewart was found guilty of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and two counts of lying to a federal investigator. Her securities fraud charge was dismissed. https://www.thestreet.com/lifestyle/martha-stewart-net-worth-15064812 https://www.thestreet.com/lifestyle/martha-stewart-net-worth...
- paulmd 6y ago
  The one thing that will absolutely send you straight to jail 100% of the time is playing games with rich people's money.
m1sta_ 6y ago
Fines like this typically punish shareholders and lower level employees (via restructuring in response to a need to find budget for the fine).
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Fines like this typically punish shareholders Good. That should motivate shareholders to assure that they can hold management of firms they invest in accountable. > and lower level employees Which is regrettable, but I’m not sure how any form of corporate sanction could avoid that.
  - entangledqubit 6y ago
    You could have the fines be "heavily" pulled out of compensation packages for the higher ups who actually have the power to change the organization... but then they'd probably just leave and screw up some other place? Do boards generally try to claw back compensation in these sorts of situations? (Just as they have been doing in some of the recent cases involving financial shenanigans.)
- deepsun 6y ago
  Boeing belongs to the USA, so US citizens will take the punishment then. Am I right?
  - blendergeek 6y ago
    Boeing is a publicly traded company based in the USA. That is different from being owned by the USA. Amtrak (which provided passenger rail service in the USA) is owned by the US Federal Government. Boeing on the other hand is owned by a multitude of individuals like you and me and probably a good number hedgefunds.
    - m463 6y ago
      Meanwhile, Airbus... I've always heard the French Government supports it, but it's hard to see exactly how. and something interesting I just noticed: "In 2015, Airbus Group said it was establishing an R&D center and venture capital fund in Silicon Valley."

csours 6y ago

Who do you think should? An engineer who worked on the system? A manager? What law was broken? If you were in their position, how would you know you were breaking the law? Diffuse responsibility is a real problem. 'Teaching to the test' is a real problem. Normalizing risk is a real problem. Blaming individuals is very satisfying, and it's very easy to do with hindsight, but if you want large complex systems to work better, you have to get over individual blame. I'm not saying it's easy, and I'm not saying that we should stop looking for law-breakers, but I am saying that punishment will not lead to better outcomes in the absence of other positive actions.

fgonzag 6y ago
I'd start with any one who decided not to ground the planes and deflected responsibility a soon as the first crash happened. They have direct responsibility over the second crash. The I'd go over all the certification process. Any person who concealed information or misled in an official capacity goes to jail. That's the whole point of requiring titled engineers signatures. The buck stops with them.
- jvanderbot 6y ago
  They were very likely assured by their program managers that the crash was a fluke, presented with convincing test data, and pressured by their bosses, the board, etc etc. These things rarely happen by individual malfeasance. They are part of a system of small mistaken assumptions that compound into big lies.
  - aprdm 6y ago
    I agree with you but out of curiosity what do you suggest as a solution ? You believe all we need is the fine and then the company goes under ? If that's true then all the individuals who failed could just as easily go to another company and repeat their failures. For doctors a failure can make their license get revoked (even tho it doesn't seem to happen very often in practice). Wonder if there could be something similar but indeed it is very hard to find "a person to blame", maybe the CEO? CTO? :)

KorematsuFred 6y ago

Constant news around this bothered me deeply. Someone admits they committed fraud and 346 people died but pays a small sum to get out of the mess without jail time for anyone ? A lot of people say this is bad and these corporations are too powerful and we need someone like Bernie sanders to teach them a lesson. A closer scrutiny reveals exactly the opposite. It is the government that is too powerful, government tries to open an investigation with an explicit objective of jailing the executive. At some point Boeing has to ask how much it stands to lose if the executive goes to jail. Even though the probability is low, the DOJ has long arms and more resources to harass Boeing. $2.5B is not a fine but a bribe that an all powerful DOJ has extracted from Boeing. $2.5B is still lot of money and 346 deaths is even bigger disaster for Boeing. Boeing did not benefit from 346 deaths on other hand it suffered massive losses. A selfish and greedy company like Boeing have far greater incentives to course correct rather than DOJ or US government. Remember how USA bombed countries while making completely fraudulent claims about WMD ? Who went to jail for that ?

ineedasername 6y ago
You're basically saying the fact that the government can investigate a thing is proof that the government is too powerful. I'm not sure where you get the idea that an investigation was opened with the specific purpose of jailing an executive: I don't see any indication that was the case, and just about anyone in or outside of government could have predicted before the investigation that no executive would go to jail over this.
- KorematsuFred 6y ago
  > You're basically saying the fact that the government can investigate a thing is proof that the government is too powerful. Not at all. If government could actually investigate and prove charges and jail Boeing CEO would be the sign of an effective government. The fact that it simple files charges, does a phony investigation and settles for a very low bribe for the deaths of my loved ones is the proof that we are dealing with a mafia and not a government of people.
arcticbull 6y ago