3 ms·

The idea that ordering audits and obviously-useless training sessions absolve someone of responsibility is ludicrous. If you run an organization that's conducti

The idea that ordering audits and obviously-useless training sessions absolve someone of responsibility is ludicrous. If you run an organization that's conducting fraud (by the definition that any thinking person can see; latin is irrelevant) and causing a detriment to public safety, you should be responsible for it. If the board tried everything they could, in genuine good faith, and found that it was impossible to prevent their organization from causing harm, why didn't they choose to shut down the organization? Consider a pit bull owner who, knowing that their dog has a tendency to attack people, takes it to a two-week dog training class and then lets it off the leash around toddlers. He did everything he could! Clearly he's not responsible.

gruez 3y ago
>If you run an organization that's conducting fraud (by the definition that any thinking person can see; latin is irrelevant) and causing a detriment to public safety, you should be responsible for it. So if you were running a bakery, hired some help to do some overnight prep/cleaning, did all the proper training, and it turned out that the guy was violating health codes, you personally should be held responsible? Note, this isn't saying the business itself shouldn't be liable if someone got sick or whatever, but that you personally should go to jail or whatever because it happened on your watch.
- soerxpso 3y ago
  Do health code violations carry criminal charges in any relevant jurisdiction? Regardless, the situation is different for two reasons. 1. It's one isolated incident, and no connection can be made to show that the organization itself is responsible. If, instead, you trained 10 workers and they were all violating the health code, then I would find it hard to believe that it's coincidental, and you should probably be held responsible for whatever penalties that incurs. 2. In your example there's already a specific individual responsible (the employee who violated the health code, against orders). In the other, real example at hand, the legal system seems to be okay with saying that no person is responsible because all potentially-responsible parties are pointing fingers at the ghost of The Company itself. This system results in crime being committed that would hold criminal charges if an individual did it, but instead holds only fiscal penalties because it was done at scale by a group.

gruez 3y ago

>If you run an organization that's conducting fraud (by the definition that any thinking person can see; latin is irrelevant) and causing a detriment to public safety, you should be responsible for it. So if you were running a bakery, hired some help to do some overnight prep/cleaning, did all the proper training, and it turned out that the guy was violating health codes, you personally should be held responsible? Note, this isn't saying the business itself shouldn't be liable if someone got sick or whatever, but that you personally should go to jail or whatever because it happened on your watch.

soerxpso 3y ago
Do health code violations carry criminal charges in any relevant jurisdiction? Regardless, the situation is different for two reasons. 1. It's one isolated incident, and no connection can be made to show that the organization itself is responsible. If, instead, you trained 10 workers and they were all violating the health code, then I would find it hard to believe that it's coincidental, and you should probably be held responsible for whatever penalties that incurs. 2. In your example there's already a specific individual responsible (the employee who violated the health code, against orders). In the other, real example at hand, the legal system seems to be okay with saying that no person is responsible because all potentially-responsible parties are pointing fingers at the ghost of The Company itself. This system results in crime being committed that would hold criminal charges if an individual did it, but instead holds only fiscal penalties because it was done at scale by a group.