5 ms·

It should be noted that giving criminals immunity is the entire damn point of the system. The point of "immunity" is so that the lower-level criminals lose the

It should be noted that giving criminals immunity is the entire damn point of the system. The point of "immunity" is so that the lower-level criminals lose their 5th Amendment rights, and are therefore compelled to present evidence against their boss. The 5th Amendment in the USA states "Right against self-incrimination", but if you have immunity, you cannot self-incriminate. So once you sign that immunity document, you can be compelled to speak anything in court. Even if you "forgot", once you sign over, you can be __forced__ to talk. So yeah, I'm not entirely sure if "immunity given to group X" is a big problem? Its how courts work, its how we pin down the ringleader. Its often less important to get the lackeys, and more important for the officers to focus on the bosses. --------- Without the presentation of this evidence, you never get a guilty plea. Remember, in the USA's court system, you need to __prove__ the defendant of wrongdoing. That means you either need to convince people, or force people, to present evidence in court that's helpful to your case. These people are often insiders, and immunity is extremely useful for getting around 5th Amendment issues.

quantified 4y ago
Bankruptcy isn't a criminal matter.
- feet 4y ago
  Also, "executives" don't sound like lower level
  - whatwherewhy 4y ago
    Aren't executives just doing what the board wants, and the board just following what the owners want?
    - delusional 4y ago
      And the owners what the market wants. Really you, the consumer, is responsible!
      - whatwherewhy 4y ago
        Well not really. The owners are ultimately responsible for the company's behavior.
        judge2020 4y ago
        And yet the owners rely on the market/consumer giving them money to put food on the table and afford a roof over their head. Which is to say, user?id=delusional above was mostly joking.
        feet 4y ago
        Corporations respond to profit motives above all else, but there are still humans making those decisions within the corporations
        lazide 4y ago
        The shareholders will end up with the valuation they end up with, but are immune from prosecution in all but the most explicit and egregious cases. If they vote in directors, which they suspect will hire a criminal CEO, that’s enough levels of indirection that unless they write a memo explicitly stating to do so (and maybe even then!), the worst outcome for them is the valuation of the company drops to zero and they lose their capital, minus whatever dividends have been pulled out. That is barring potential criminal conspiracy anyway, which would require concrete actions in furtherance of a conspiracy, which would be difficult to prove without something like that memo.
      - WeylandYutani 4y ago
        Look we were all just following orders.
        john2x 4y ago
        Chemical and electrical orders
      - iso1631 4y ago
    - yunohn 4y ago
      TFA is about Board Executives.
- advisedwang 4y ago
  If you admit to a crime while testifying in a non-criminal matter, you can be charged with that crime and that testimony can be used against you. Therefore you can take the 5th in non-criminal cases - as you have a right not to incriminate yourself in future criminal matters. Therefore non-criminal courts can and do grant immunity against future prosecution (although I'm not sure if it's jurisdictional, ie whether federal bankruptcy court can grant you immunity against future state charges).
  - aidenn0 4y ago
    TFA is a bout civil immunity though, not criminal immunity. The first paragraph talks about the board of TWC allegedly knowing about Weinstein paying off people accusing him. One could make the argument that not acting on this knowledge to protect the value of the is an abrogation of their duties as board members. However the board was granted immunity in Chapter 11, so no such arguments can be advanced in court now.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- bradleyjg 4y ago
  I guess not everyone has time to read the articles before commenting.
alixrjlkdjf 4y ago
Maybe because the example they gave on the article they were going after one person crime (rape), and the case that caused outrage is where the guilty bosses are already the guilty bosses and they still got deals. Would you not see any problem if (still using the article example) Weinstein was given immunity to report on his own rapes? Also it compounds the rage as it was what happened to all the banks in 2008, all the air cias after 1st covid, etc.
- dragontamer 4y ago
  > Would you not see any problem if (still using the article example) Weinstein was given immunity to report on his own rapes? Weinstein is the boss. So you'd never give him immunity to the case, he's the target. If Weinstein had a close "ally", who was less important for justice but important to testify for the case... even if that "ally" had crimes associated with him, you'd want to give that "Hypothetical ally" immunity. _THEN_ you force the ally to talk (if the ally fails to talk in court, you throw him in jail for contempt of court, and take away their immunity).
  - cool_dude85 4y ago
    >Weinstein is the boss. So you'd never give him immunity to the case, he's the target. In the article it says that Weinstein was practically given immunity to personal lawsuits related to the class action. Individual members of the class were able to retain the right to sue him personally in exchange for taking 1/4 of their payout in the bankruptcy proceedings. Anyway, aside from the specific inaccuracy of what you're saying here, this whole argument is mush-headed slop. You're talking about criminal cases, the article is about bankruptcy proceedings and civil lawsuits against individuals. You might as well say that you'd never give Weinstein immunity because in video games making some enemies fully immune to elemental attacks makes class balance difficult.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > the article it says that Weinstein was practically given immunity to personal lawsuits Weinstein is in jail. (The victims "could opt out of giving lawsuit immunity to Harvey Weinstein himself - but only if they agreed to reduce their portion of the settlement payout by 75%," which seems fine, this is a civil proceeding and the point of bankruptcy is to draw a line under liability.) The "blanket immunity" in the HN title misleadingly refers to Board members being released from liability.
ilyt 4y ago
well, unless the ringleader is one that got the immunity...
harimau777 4y ago
Aren't the executives generally the ringleaders?
- dragontamer 4y ago
  No. Lets say Weinstein was the target. Then all the executives around Weinstein are the lackeys. So you offer immunity to the lackeys (aka: the executives in the inner-circle) so that you get Weinstein. Offering immunity to the low-level janitor doesn't do any good. You need someone high-enough that they're in the "inner circle" of the target. Someone with real dirt on your target. --------- Its very common in criminal court to give immunity to mob bosses, to get dirt on even bigger mob bosses. Making an article saying "Only mob bosses get immunity" is counterproductive. That's the damn point of the grant-immunity system. You grant it to criminals to help catch other criminals. ------ Lets put it this way: lets say there's some innocent bystander who happens to know what is going on. Police / Investigators don't even offer immunity to them, because they committed no crime, so there's no point offering immunity. You just ask the innocent dude to come to court and answer a few questions / testify on what they know.
naasking 4y ago
> Without the presentation of this evidence, you never get a guilty plea. Firstly, I don't necessarily agree that you could never get a guilty plea. The government has lots of resources and the threat of scrutinizing you and going after you for years is a significant pressure. For sure this can be abused, but my point is only that this blanket assumption that the government just has to grant immunity or throw up its hands seems like a false choice. Secondly, total immunity is a pretty broad guarantee though. Why not trade a maximum penalty for that evidence, instead of no penalty at all?
- dragontamer 4y ago
  > Why not trade a maximum penalty for that evidence Because of 5th Amendment issues. If there's a penalty associated with talking about evidence, then they'll just plead the 5th Amendment. Only with total immunity can you bypass the 5th Amendment and _FORCE_ them to talk.
  - naasking 4y ago
    Sorry, I don't see how that follows. A guarantee that "you will only get sentenced for X years regardless of what you admit" does not seem meaningfully different if X is zero or one. edit: not meaningfully different with respect to the 5th, obviously it's meaningfully different with respect to "justice", as getting off scott free rubs many people the wrng way.
    - dragontamer 4y ago
      If X is zero, you did not admit to the crime (and therefore, the 5th Amendment doesn't apply) If X is non-zero, you admit to the crime (and therefore, retain the ability to plead the 5th).
      - naasking 4y ago
        I don't understand. Any immunity deal entails revealing criminal behaviour. That is an admission, and admission is the whole reason immunity is granted. Edit: the point being that the limit on their sentence is contingent on not pleading the 5th.
scotty79 4y ago
> you can be __forced__ to talk How, if you have immunity?
- 58028641 4y ago
  Not talking would be a future crime that immunity would not cover.

quantified 4y ago

Bankruptcy isn't a criminal matter.

feet 4y ago
Also, "executives" don't sound like lower level
- whatwherewhy 4y ago
  Aren't executives just doing what the board wants, and the board just following what the owners want?
  - delusional 4y ago
    And the owners what the market wants. Really you, the consumer, is responsible!
    - whatwherewhy 4y ago
      Well not really. The owners are ultimately responsible for the company's behavior.
      - judge2020 4y ago
        And yet the owners rely on the market/consumer giving them money to put food on the table and afford a roof over their head. Which is to say, user?id=delusional above was mostly joking.
        feet 4y ago
        Corporations respond to profit motives above all else, but there are still humans making those decisions within the corporations
      - lazide 4y ago
        The shareholders will end up with the valuation they end up with, but are immune from prosecution in all but the most explicit and egregious cases. If they vote in directors, which they suspect will hire a criminal CEO, that’s enough levels of indirection that unless they write a memo explicitly stating to do so (and maybe even then!), the worst outcome for them is the valuation of the company drops to zero and they lose their capital, minus whatever dividends have been pulled out. That is barring potential criminal conspiracy anyway, which would require concrete actions in furtherance of a conspiracy, which would be difficult to prove without something like that memo.
    - WeylandYutani 4y ago
      Look we were all just following orders.
      - john2x 4y ago
        Chemical and electrical orders
    - iso1631 4y ago
  - yunohn 4y ago
    TFA is about Board Executives.
advisedwang 4y ago
If you admit to a crime while testifying in a non-criminal matter, you can be charged with that crime and that testimony can be used against you. Therefore you can take the 5th in non-criminal cases - as you have a right not to incriminate yourself in future criminal matters. Therefore non-criminal courts can and do grant immunity against future prosecution (although I'm not sure if it's jurisdictional, ie whether federal bankruptcy court can grant you immunity against future state charges).
- aidenn0 4y ago
  TFA is a bout civil immunity though, not criminal immunity. The first paragraph talks about the board of TWC allegedly knowing about Weinstein paying off people accusing him. One could make the argument that not acting on this knowledge to protect the value of the is an abrogation of their duties as board members. However the board was granted immunity in Chapter 11, so no such arguments can be advanced in court now.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
bradleyjg 4y ago
I guess not everyone has time to read the articles before commenting.

alixrjlkdjf 4y ago

Maybe because the example they gave on the article they were going after one person crime (rape), and the case that caused outrage is where the guilty bosses are already the guilty bosses and they still got deals. Would you not see any problem if (still using the article example) Weinstein was given immunity to report on his own rapes? Also it compounds the rage as it was what happened to all the banks in 2008, all the air cias after 1st covid, etc.

dragontamer 4y ago
> Would you not see any problem if (still using the article example) Weinstein was given immunity to report on his own rapes? Weinstein is the boss. So you'd never give him immunity to the case, he's the target. If Weinstein had a close "ally", who was less important for justice but important to testify for the case... even if that "ally" had crimes associated with him, you'd want to give that "Hypothetical ally" immunity. _THEN_ you force the ally to talk (if the ally fails to talk in court, you throw him in jail for contempt of court, and take away their immunity).
- cool_dude85 4y ago
  >Weinstein is the boss. So you'd never give him immunity to the case, he's the target. In the article it says that Weinstein was practically given immunity to personal lawsuits related to the class action. Individual members of the class were able to retain the right to sue him personally in exchange for taking 1/4 of their payout in the bankruptcy proceedings. Anyway, aside from the specific inaccuracy of what you're saying here, this whole argument is mush-headed slop. You're talking about criminal cases, the article is about bankruptcy proceedings and civil lawsuits against individuals. You might as well say that you'd never give Weinstein immunity because in video games making some enemies fully immune to elemental attacks makes class balance difficult.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > the article it says that Weinstein was practically given immunity to personal lawsuits Weinstein is in jail. (The victims "could opt out of giving lawsuit immunity to Harvey Weinstein himself - but only if they agreed to reduce their portion of the settlement payout by 75%," which seems fine, this is a civil proceeding and the point of bankruptcy is to draw a line under liability.) The "blanket immunity" in the HN title misleadingly refers to Board members being released from liability.

ilyt 4y ago

well, unless the ringleader is one that got the immunity...

harimau777 4y ago

Aren't the executives generally the ringleaders?

dragontamer 4y ago
No. Lets say Weinstein was the target. Then all the executives around Weinstein are the lackeys. So you offer immunity to the lackeys (aka: the executives in the inner-circle) so that you get Weinstein. Offering immunity to the low-level janitor doesn't do any good. You need someone high-enough that they're in the "inner circle" of the target. Someone with real dirt on your target. --------- Its very common in criminal court to give immunity to mob bosses, to get dirt on even bigger mob bosses. Making an article saying "Only mob bosses get immunity" is counterproductive. That's the damn point of the grant-immunity system. You grant it to criminals to help catch other criminals. ------ Lets put it this way: lets say there's some innocent bystander who happens to know what is going on. Police / Investigators don't even offer immunity to them, because they committed no crime, so there's no point offering immunity. You just ask the innocent dude to come to court and answer a few questions / testify on what they know.

naasking 4y ago

> Without the presentation of this evidence, you never get a guilty plea. Firstly, I don't necessarily agree that you could never get a guilty plea. The government has lots of resources and the threat of scrutinizing you and going after you for years is a significant pressure. For sure this can be abused, but my point is only that this blanket assumption that the government just has to grant immunity or throw up its hands seems like a false choice. Secondly, total immunity is a pretty broad guarantee though. Why not trade a maximum penalty for that evidence, instead of no penalty at all?

dragontamer 4y ago
> Why not trade a maximum penalty for that evidence Because of 5th Amendment issues. If there's a penalty associated with talking about evidence, then they'll just plead the 5th Amendment. Only with total immunity can you bypass the 5th Amendment and _FORCE_ them to talk.
- naasking 4y ago
  Sorry, I don't see how that follows. A guarantee that "you will only get sentenced for X years regardless of what you admit" does not seem meaningfully different if X is zero or one. edit: not meaningfully different with respect to the 5th, obviously it's meaningfully different with respect to "justice", as getting off scott free rubs many people the wrng way.
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    If X is zero, you did not admit to the crime (and therefore, the 5th Amendment doesn't apply) If X is non-zero, you admit to the crime (and therefore, retain the ability to plead the 5th).
    - naasking 4y ago
      I don't understand. Any immunity deal entails revealing criminal behaviour. That is an admission, and admission is the whole reason immunity is granted. Edit: the point being that the limit on their sentence is contingent on not pleading the 5th.

scotty79 4y ago

> you can be __forced__ to talk How, if you have immunity?

58028641 4y ago
Not talking would be a future crime that immunity would not cover.