5 ms·

Agreed, nothing sort of holding executives accountable with actual threat of prison time fixes this. Fines don’t matter once you are the winner in the market. H

Agreed, nothing sort of holding executives accountable with actual threat of prison time fixes this. Fines don’t matter once you are the winner in the market. Have to set an example and stop individuals from feeling safe when lying for companies.

nickff 5y ago
Fines against individuals, with a prohibition on further compensation/employment by the company/organization would likely be sufficient to discourage this behavior. There is widespread disagreement as to whether prison should be used as a punitive tool, and it would serve no other purpose in a case like this. Corporate fines seem ineffective and almost useless , especially because these sorts of actions will often benefit the individuals undertaking them (principal agent problem). I suspect the motivation behind corporate fines is that they can be large monetary amounts, and look good for the investigator/agent/attorney.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- onemoresoop 5y ago
  They could game that and take turns when they want to retire. Fines are not enough. Prison time would make a better deterrent.
  - nickff 5y ago
    Paying a huge fine will likely disrupt a retirement plan.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - trillic 5y ago
      Not if the company pays it.
      - nickff 5y ago
        >"Not if the company pays it. " That's why I included the "... prohibition on further compensation/employment by the company/organization...".
    - bogwog 5y ago
      People gamble money all the time, even when the odds are terrible. Less people are willing to gamble their lives. The threat of prison is more effective than the threat of losing some money.
      - nickff 5y ago
        >"Less people are willing to gamble their lives. The threat of prison is more effective than the threat of losing some money." Since you brought it up... reductio ad absurdum: The threat of execution is even effective than prison, shouldn't we 'spring for' that instead? As per my sibling comment: I think that a fine which meaningfully reduces an individual's means is possible, and preferable to using prison sentences to instill fear. My view is that the extreme sentences provided for in legislation are causing many non-guilty people to plead to lesser offenses, which is a real problem. I also think that we shouldn't be crowding jails and prisons with people who have committed civil offenses.
        salawat 5y ago
        Counterpoint: a fine will do nothing but ensure that assets will end up in trust. Prison will actually ensure that even if they do escape financial ruin, they will be paying a debt in hard, non-fungible, time.
        autoexec 5y ago
        > The threat of execution is even effective than prison, shouldn't we 'spring for' that instead? I think you'd have a hard time proving that capitol punishment was a more effective deterrent than prison. It doesn't seem to be one for crimes like murder (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jels.12291 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jels.12291). If fines are to work they would have to meaningfully reduce an individual's standard of living and continue to enforce that. Otherwise what's to stop Amazon from having people lie to congress, get fined, and then "gift" them the money back with a heavy bonus? What's to stop Amazon's corporate buddies from hiring the liar with a massive bump and a bonus to cover the fine? Some crimes justify "extreme sentences" and knowingly lying to congress should be one of them. I find a prison sentence far less extreme than forcing a person to a lower standard of living and preventing them from being to work for accept large amounts of money in the future.
- bostonsre 5y ago
  Going to jail is a lot scarier than getting a bonus clawed back and losing your job when you have enough to retire on already. Personal fines and no prison time just tweak the risk/reward calculation a little bit. These executives make a lot of money, and I would guess if they are the type to do illegal behavior they wouldn't mind gambling if the reward is great enough. I could even see it making this behavior more likely to happen if it's clear that they won't go to jail for illegal behavior and all they have to worry about is a fine and losing their job.
  - nickff 5y ago
    >"Going to jail is a lot scarier than getting a bonus clawed back and losing your job when you have enough to retire on already." Reductio ad absurdum: Getting executed is even scarier than prison, shouldn't we 'spring for' that instead? I think that a fine which meaningfully reduces an individual's means is possible, and preferable to using prison sentences to instill fear. My view is that the extreme sentences provided for in legislation are causing many non-guilty people to plead to lesser offenses, which is a real problem. I also think that we shouldn't be crowding jails and prisons with people who have committed civil offenses. What do you believe prison is for? Do you think it works?
    - justinpowers 5y ago
      I’d agree if I believed they could/would take money out of their retirement accounts and somehow disallow benefitting from trusts, but that seems highly unlikely. Prison time allows for disincentivizing as well as rehabilitation. Death sentence on the other hand… Perhaps part of the problem are our prison conditions. And the minimal effort directed towards true rehabilitation. Fixing those might make prison time less ethically fraught.
    - bostonsre 5y ago
      The deterrent has to be enough of a deterrent to actually deter people, else it's a negligible downside risk (like a slap on the wrist fine and job loss for this case). Yes, execution would certainly put a stop to this behavior, even more so than jail time (and could also help with prison overcrowding), but I think to err is human and execution is a little too extreme and would cause society to be unhappy and scared. Yes, I think there are a lot of extreme prison sentences in this country and we incarcerate way too many people. But I think it is ridiculous to be so lopsided with punishments and only put people without means in jail. White collar crimes like this one have a larger negative impact on society than some guy caught stealing a car and they should not get off with a slap on the wrist. I don't think prison is for rehabilitation. Some humans act incredibly selfishly and if there are no consequences to bad actions, they will act selfishly and they will have a negative impact on society. Law enforcement and criminal justice is a balancing act with no perfect right answer. It is not tenable to be too far on either end of the spectrum and I think we need to try to strike that balance where crime is deterred enough but where we don't live in a police state dystopia that causes a depressed and miserable society. I don't really know where that point is, but I am all for equitable punishment of white collar criminals.
onion2k 5y ago
I can think of something that would work. If Amazon is found guilty of abusing it's the data it's trusted witb, for anything, the entire company should be banned from doing business with the government. No government purchases of goods, no services hosted on AWS, no logistics provided by Amazon's last mile services, etc. If Amazon are shown to be abusing data then they shouldn't be allowed to have any public data. Maybe even extend that to all government suppliers...

nickff 5y ago

Fines against individuals, with a prohibition on further compensation/employment by the company/organization would likely be sufficient to discourage this behavior. There is widespread disagreement as to whether prison should be used as a punitive tool, and it would serve no other purpose in a case like this. Corporate fines seem ineffective and almost useless , especially because these sorts of actions will often benefit the individuals undertaking them (principal agent problem). I suspect the motivation behind corporate fines is that they can be large monetary amounts, and look good for the investigator/agent/attorney.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
onemoresoop 5y ago
They could game that and take turns when they want to retire. Fines are not enough. Prison time would make a better deterrent.
- nickff 5y ago
  Paying a huge fine will likely disrupt a retirement plan.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - trillic 5y ago
    Not if the company pays it.
    - nickff 5y ago
      >"Not if the company pays it. " That's why I included the "... prohibition on further compensation/employment by the company/organization...".
  - bogwog 5y ago
    People gamble money all the time, even when the odds are terrible. Less people are willing to gamble their lives. The threat of prison is more effective than the threat of losing some money.
    - nickff 5y ago
      >"Less people are willing to gamble their lives. The threat of prison is more effective than the threat of losing some money." Since you brought it up... reductio ad absurdum: The threat of execution is even effective than prison, shouldn't we 'spring for' that instead? As per my sibling comment: I think that a fine which meaningfully reduces an individual's means is possible, and preferable to using prison sentences to instill fear. My view is that the extreme sentences provided for in legislation are causing many non-guilty people to plead to lesser offenses, which is a real problem. I also think that we shouldn't be crowding jails and prisons with people who have committed civil offenses.
      - salawat 5y ago
        Counterpoint: a fine will do nothing but ensure that assets will end up in trust. Prison will actually ensure that even if they do escape financial ruin, they will be paying a debt in hard, non-fungible, time.
      - autoexec 5y ago
        > The threat of execution is even effective than prison, shouldn't we 'spring for' that instead? I think you'd have a hard time proving that capitol punishment was a more effective deterrent than prison. It doesn't seem to be one for crimes like murder (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jels.12291 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jels.12291). If fines are to work they would have to meaningfully reduce an individual's standard of living and continue to enforce that. Otherwise what's to stop Amazon from having people lie to congress, get fined, and then "gift" them the money back with a heavy bonus? What's to stop Amazon's corporate buddies from hiring the liar with a massive bump and a bonus to cover the fine? Some crimes justify "extreme sentences" and knowingly lying to congress should be one of them. I find a prison sentence far less extreme than forcing a person to a lower standard of living and preventing them from being to work for accept large amounts of money in the future.
bostonsre 5y ago
Going to jail is a lot scarier than getting a bonus clawed back and losing your job when you have enough to retire on already. Personal fines and no prison time just tweak the risk/reward calculation a little bit. These executives make a lot of money, and I would guess if they are the type to do illegal behavior they wouldn't mind gambling if the reward is great enough. I could even see it making this behavior more likely to happen if it's clear that they won't go to jail for illegal behavior and all they have to worry about is a fine and losing their job.
- nickff 5y ago
  >"Going to jail is a lot scarier than getting a bonus clawed back and losing your job when you have enough to retire on already." Reductio ad absurdum: Getting executed is even scarier than prison, shouldn't we 'spring for' that instead? I think that a fine which meaningfully reduces an individual's means is possible, and preferable to using prison sentences to instill fear. My view is that the extreme sentences provided for in legislation are causing many non-guilty people to plead to lesser offenses, which is a real problem. I also think that we shouldn't be crowding jails and prisons with people who have committed civil offenses. What do you believe prison is for? Do you think it works?
  - justinpowers 5y ago
    I’d agree if I believed they could/would take money out of their retirement accounts and somehow disallow benefitting from trusts, but that seems highly unlikely. Prison time allows for disincentivizing as well as rehabilitation. Death sentence on the other hand… Perhaps part of the problem are our prison conditions. And the minimal effort directed towards true rehabilitation. Fixing those might make prison time less ethically fraught.
  - bostonsre 5y ago
    The deterrent has to be enough of a deterrent to actually deter people, else it's a negligible downside risk (like a slap on the wrist fine and job loss for this case). Yes, execution would certainly put a stop to this behavior, even more so than jail time (and could also help with prison overcrowding), but I think to err is human and execution is a little too extreme and would cause society to be unhappy and scared. Yes, I think there are a lot of extreme prison sentences in this country and we incarcerate way too many people. But I think it is ridiculous to be so lopsided with punishments and only put people without means in jail. White collar crimes like this one have a larger negative impact on society than some guy caught stealing a car and they should not get off with a slap on the wrist. I don't think prison is for rehabilitation. Some humans act incredibly selfishly and if there are no consequences to bad actions, they will act selfishly and they will have a negative impact on society. Law enforcement and criminal justice is a balancing act with no perfect right answer. It is not tenable to be too far on either end of the spectrum and I think we need to try to strike that balance where crime is deterred enough but where we don't live in a police state dystopia that causes a depressed and miserable society. I don't really know where that point is, but I am all for equitable punishment of white collar criminals.

onion2k 5y ago

I can think of something that would work. If Amazon is found guilty of abusing it's the data it's trusted witb, for anything, the entire company should be banned from doing business with the government. No government purchases of goods, no services hosted on AWS, no logistics provided by Amazon's last mile services, etc. If Amazon are shown to be abusing data then they shouldn't be allowed to have any public data. Maybe even extend that to all government suppliers...