3 ms·

Are we allowed to include executives who lie about the dangers of tobacco, asbestos, climate change, or politicians and bureaucrats who lie about the evidence t

Are we allowed to include executives who lie about the dangers of tobacco, asbestos, climate change, or politicians and bureaucrats who lie about the evidence they use to justify wars, things of that nature -- all lies for profit which materially damaged others -- in the non-violent bucket to answer your question? They may not not technically be criminals because the government and judicial system protect this class of people, so in the interest of liability let's not allege they committed any crimes, but in the context of the the question yes white-collar or non-violent "whoopsie daisies" can do much more widespread damage.

bee_rider 5y ago
It does, I guess, technically answer my question in isolation. In the context of the broader discussion here, though I find it unsatisfying -- Holmes was specifically found guilty of defrauding the investors, and (as far as I've seen) acquitted of defrauding the patients. I don't think the main punishment for tobacco, etc company execs should be based around, hypothetically, ripping off investors (actually I guess their investors don't feel ripped off in many cases). The main victims, in the case of tobacco and asbestos, seem to be people who've essentially been poisoned. This ought to be considered a violent act in my opinion. Unfortunately the legal system seems to see it differently, so again you are correct, but again I'm left a bit unsatisfied...