20 ms·

Then by that logic, the drug runner should not be jailed either, as they too are a victim rather than an accomplice. May be they too are being threatened by the

Then by that logic, the drug runner should not be jailed either, as they too are a victim rather than an accomplice. May be they too are being threatened by the cartel to cooperate, and so on. Taken far enough, you really can't penalize anyone and things like sanctions don't work and have no teeth.

d4mi3n 4y ago
I think awareness, agency, and intent are also factors here. In your and the OPs examples: - CEO should have a large amount of agency and awareness of the situation, meaning they should be on the hook for severe negligence at the least. If intent can be proven, that should definitely result in criminal charges. - A bank teller might have awareness if they personally handle suspiciously large transactions per month, but the amount of agency they have in the situation is low. They can either report it up their chain of command, do nothing, or work elsewhere. You might be able to demonstrate intent here if it’s the same teller and they don’t raise any alarms, but that’s also assuming nobody has valid reasons for regular 50k deposits and that the teller doesn’t fear for their job or wellbeing. - Drug runner is a tricky one—how much agency do they have? Are they under duress? They likely intend to run drugs unless they’re in the know about their cargo. As other commenters posted, there’s also no official way to dilute responsibility here as the organization running drugs isn’t beholden to our legal system, so our theoretical drug runner is the only person available to punish. It’s an interesting thought experiment. I’d like to hear thoughts on how folks think stuff like this should be prosecuted — what outcomes do we want to promote and what actions would promote those outcomes?
olalonde 4y ago
"Money laundering" and "drug smuggling" are two completely different things that can't be reasonably compared. A better analogy here would be shipping companies or taxi drivers being caught unknowingly transporting drugs. I'm pretty sure the USPS does that every day and I don't think any of their execs go to prison over that. Same for bus, taxi or airline companies. In the online world, the DMCA explicitly ensures that web hosts and platform operators are not on the hook for unknowingly hosting illegal content.
hnfong 4y ago
> Taken far enough, you really can't penalize anyone and things like sanctions don't work and have no teeth. You're getting somewhere, actually. Crimes generally don't happen in a vacuum. In most crimes, the society around the perpetrator is complicit. Most people aren't born compelled to become delinquents. They're often driven by unfortunate circumstances and ignorance, situations that society shares part of the blame too. The criminal law just chooses the most unfortunate person as the "protagonist" to punish. There are certainly "evil" people, but they're far less than the criminal law seeks to convict.

d4mi3n 4y ago

I think awareness, agency, and intent are also factors here. In your and the OPs examples: - CEO should have a large amount of agency and awareness of the situation, meaning they should be on the hook for severe negligence at the least. If intent can be proven, that should definitely result in criminal charges. - A bank teller might have awareness if they personally handle suspiciously large transactions per month, but the amount of agency they have in the situation is low. They can either report it up their chain of command, do nothing, or work elsewhere. You might be able to demonstrate intent here if it’s the same teller and they don’t raise any alarms, but that’s also assuming nobody has valid reasons for regular 50k deposits and that the teller doesn’t fear for their job or wellbeing. - Drug runner is a tricky one—how much agency do they have? Are they under duress? They likely intend to run drugs unless they’re in the know about their cargo. As other commenters posted, there’s also no official way to dilute responsibility here as the organization running drugs isn’t beholden to our legal system, so our theoretical drug runner is the only person available to punish. It’s an interesting thought experiment. I’d like to hear thoughts on how folks think stuff like this should be prosecuted — what outcomes do we want to promote and what actions would promote those outcomes?

olalonde 4y ago

"Money laundering" and "drug smuggling" are two completely different things that can't be reasonably compared. A better analogy here would be shipping companies or taxi drivers being caught unknowingly transporting drugs. I'm pretty sure the USPS does that every day and I don't think any of their execs go to prison over that. Same for bus, taxi or airline companies. In the online world, the DMCA explicitly ensures that web hosts and platform operators are not on the hook for unknowingly hosting illegal content.

hnfong 4y ago

> Taken far enough, you really can't penalize anyone and things like sanctions don't work and have no teeth. You're getting somewhere, actually. Crimes generally don't happen in a vacuum. In most crimes, the society around the perpetrator is complicit. Most people aren't born compelled to become delinquents. They're often driven by unfortunate circumstances and ignorance, situations that society shares part of the blame too. The criminal law just chooses the most unfortunate person as the "protagonist" to punish. There are certainly "evil" people, but they're far less than the criminal law seeks to convict.