21 ms·

When are regulators and enforcers going to wise up to this "clever" game of disguising malicious behavior as negligence? I've seen so many people strategically

by gmd63 4y ago

When are regulators and enforcers going to wise up to this "clever" game of disguising malicious behavior as negligence? I've seen so many people strategically play dumb that at this point I don't believe whether or not a violation was accidental should have any weight on the punishment. Nature doesn't care whether our immune systems accidentally slack off, or whether we accidentally didn't protect our cities from a flood. Why would we provide an incentive structure for people to act like they are stupid?

rapind 4y ago
I think people being negligent legitimately happens quite a bit. I agree though that when it comes to corporate behaviour, negligence should just be treated as willful intent.
- Mtinie 4y ago
  Absolutely. Ignorance of the law is not a defense, nor is “whoops!”
nostrademons 4y ago
It's very difficult to do this without introducing ThoughtCrime. The set of things that you could potentially have thought about doing is infinite. There's almost inevitably something in hindsight that you could have done to get the results that the prosecutor/plaintiff desired. The problem is that ordinary people without the benefit of hindsight fail to notice these options all the time, for all sorts of mundane reasons. If you criminalize negligence you're going to sweep an awful lot of innocent people up in your dragnet. Strategic stupidity is indistinguishable, from the outside, from actual stupidity. I'd bet the latter is significantly more common. Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
- nobodyandproud 4y ago
  Ignorance of the law doesn’t protect individuals from being prosecuted. This is excusing a two-tier system.
- gmd63 4y ago
  I'm suggesting we abandon "ThoughtCrime". The way it is now, people analyze your intent and if they determine it is malicious you get punished. If you pretend to be ignorant you get let off the hook. Trying to look into someone's head is bad. That's what I'm saying.
- freejazz 4y ago
  > Strategic stupidity is indistinguishable, from the outside, from actual stupidity One answer is to punish it the same. in this circumstance, I don't think the facts work for google at all as they A) had the burden, and B) lied to the court saying that they complied. The court doesn't care about the individual workers at Google, it cares that Google lied to the court and also spoiled evidence.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  > "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." Okay, so we could dispose with a whole raft of individual crimes: No-one should ever be prosecuted for theft, because Theft requires malice, I thought I was taking abandoned goods! No-one should be prosecuted for fraud, I just accidentally omitted the fact that the item I am selling does not work? When are you going to wise up to the fact that, if you do the same things Google does, you will be convicted immediately. The corporate structure allows them to avoid liability and deliberately create vagueness as to who's fault it is. This is 100% intentional. And they've done nothing to deserve this privilege.
freejazz 4y ago
Regulators? They are facing sanctions in a district court...
avianlyric 4y ago
> When are regulators and enforcers going to wise up to this "clever" game of disguising malicious behavior as negligence? Thankfully in finance many of them already have. In the UK there a number of “Prescribed Responsibility” roles which financial organisations are required to fill with a single individual. That individual is required to be competent, knowledgeable and aware of any company actions that fall within their area of responsibility. It’s a criminal offence for them to fail on any of those three points, and also criminal for a financial organisation to appoint someone who couldn’t reasonably be expected to meet those three points. The organisation is also required to make sure those roles are only held by senior executives with real decision making power. As a consequence there is no space for wilful ignorance, or enacting policies to try and distribute decision making. Attempting those, and then having your company later found to be breaking the law, would result in personal criminal liability for the executive involved.

by gmd63 4y ago

rapind 4y ago

I think people being negligent legitimately happens quite a bit. I agree though that when it comes to corporate behaviour, negligence should just be treated as willful intent.

Mtinie 4y ago
Absolutely. Ignorance of the law is not a defense, nor is “whoops!”

nostrademons 4y ago

It's very difficult to do this without introducing ThoughtCrime. The set of things that you could potentially have thought about doing is infinite. There's almost inevitably something in hindsight that you could have done to get the results that the prosecutor/plaintiff desired. The problem is that ordinary people without the benefit of hindsight fail to notice these options all the time, for all sorts of mundane reasons. If you criminalize negligence you're going to sweep an awful lot of innocent people up in your dragnet. Strategic stupidity is indistinguishable, from the outside, from actual stupidity. I'd bet the latter is significantly more common. Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

nobodyandproud 4y ago
Ignorance of the law doesn’t protect individuals from being prosecuted. This is excusing a two-tier system.
gmd63 4y ago
I'm suggesting we abandon "ThoughtCrime". The way it is now, people analyze your intent and if they determine it is malicious you get punished. If you pretend to be ignorant you get let off the hook. Trying to look into someone's head is bad. That's what I'm saying.
freejazz 4y ago
> Strategic stupidity is indistinguishable, from the outside, from actual stupidity One answer is to punish it the same. in this circumstance, I don't think the facts work for google at all as they A) had the burden, and B) lied to the court saying that they complied. The court doesn't care about the individual workers at Google, it cares that Google lied to the court and also spoiled evidence.
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." Okay, so we could dispose with a whole raft of individual crimes: No-one should ever be prosecuted for theft, because Theft requires malice, I thought I was taking abandoned goods! No-one should be prosecuted for fraud, I just accidentally omitted the fact that the item I am selling does not work? When are you going to wise up to the fact that, if you do the same things Google does, you will be convicted immediately. The corporate structure allows them to avoid liability and deliberately create vagueness as to who's fault it is. This is 100% intentional. And they've done nothing to deserve this privilege.

freejazz 4y ago

Regulators? They are facing sanctions in a district court...

avianlyric 4y ago

> When are regulators and enforcers going to wise up to this "clever" game of disguising malicious behavior as negligence? Thankfully in finance many of them already have. In the UK there a number of “Prescribed Responsibility” roles which financial organisations are required to fill with a single individual. That individual is required to be competent, knowledgeable and aware of any company actions that fall within their area of responsibility. It’s a criminal offence for them to fail on any of those three points, and also criminal for a financial organisation to appoint someone who couldn’t reasonably be expected to meet those three points. The organisation is also required to make sure those roles are only held by senior executives with real decision making power. As a consequence there is no space for wilful ignorance, or enacting policies to try and distribute decision making. Attempting those, and then having your company later found to be breaking the law, would result in personal criminal liability for the executive involved.