5 ms·
I think you’d be surprised. Just because you don’t hear about the payments doesn’t mean they didn’t happen. Many settlement agreements include clauses prohibit
by don_neufeld 3y ago
I think you’d be surprised.
Just because you don’t hear about the payments doesn’t mean they didn’t happen. Many settlement agreements include clauses prohibiting those involved from discussing the case, or even disclosing that a settlement exists.
Ask me how I know, or better yet - don’t.
- e40 3y agoAgreed. My mom was friends with an ex-secretary of a SF real estate mogul and she's quite wealthy now herself because she sued and was paid off to go away. The people who are paid off are usually bound by confidentiality agreements.
- wing-_-nuts 3y agoI think you're conflating absolute and relative 'cost'. The rich might have to pay settlements for their wrongdoing but for a multi billionaire a 1m settlement is more of a hassle for the time it wastes than the money itself. The rich rarely have to pay so much that it genuinely hurts. Any fines levied by the EEOC are likely to be an absolute slap on the wrist.
- robertlagrant 3y agoThey still have to go to jail if they're criminals. Our goal shouldn't be to make people genuinely hurt in any situation.
- plagiarist 3y agoThey don't always go to jail when they should. They might have a preexisting condition like affluenza that keeps them out. The goal of fines and punishments should be that they are painful enough to deter the action. It is a strawman to pretend we are discussing "any situation." Contracts are important for the economy to function. Violating the terms of this many contracts should be painful, like "strip the liability protection of the company structure," painful IMO.
- yborg 3y agoShow me the list of billionaires jailed that aren't in prison because of some more powerful billionaire strongman that they were foolish enough to cross.
- dumpsterlid 3y ago[dead]
- Aeolun 3y ago> Our goal shouldn't be to make people genuinely hurt in any situation. What? No. That’s the whole point of the fine. If it’s just another random expense then it’s not an effective deterrent. If the rich guy goes to jail for two weeks because he fucked over some poor people it’s not an effective deterrent. If the poor guy goes to jail for 20 years because he ripped off some rich people it’s just a step shy of a private police force.
- golergka 3y ago> What? No. That’s the whole point of the fine. If it’s just another random expense then it’s not an effective deterrent. Why not? The damage is compensated in absolute terms, the price is paid.
- Aeolun 3y agoOnly if you want to normalize the behavior. Giving specific behavior a fixed monetary cost means rich people aren’t bound by the law.
- robertlagrant 3y agoAll fines give behaviour a fixed monetary value. Does that mean no-one is bound by law?
- palata 3y agoYou missed the point. Given monetary value does not mean no-one is bound by the law. It's if the monetary value is so low that it doesn't matter for the particular individual that suddenly, the individual is not bound by law anymore. Is it really that hard to understand?
- robertlagrant 3y agoIt's easy to understand; just not easy to agree with. The law's job is to enforce penalties and rights equally, blindly even, and not to scale everything according to someone's individual circumstance.
- bjornasm 3y ago>They still have to go to jail if they're criminals. Genuine question: do they?