8 ms·

Yeah, this is key. I don't see why the system shouldn't be set up that way. Company does something criminal, now boss is considered a criminal.

constantcrying 2y ago
That is a perversion of justice. You can not transfer criminal liability for money. Your employees can be criminals regardless of culture. The precedent this would set is ridiculous.
- abenga 2y ago
  Who should be responsible for a company's crimes if not the people who make decisions in the company? If we want companies to have legal personhood, how about they suffer the same perils of breaking the law (prison time, etc)? Fines are just a price we set on breaking the law.
  - constantcrying 2y ago
    >Who should be responsible for a company's crimes if not the people who make decisions in the company? The person committing that crime. >If we want companies to have legal personhood, how about they suffer the same perils of breaking the law (prison time, etc)? Companies can not be put to jail.
    - abenga 2y ago
      The people committing the crime include those who make the decisions. Hiring an assassin makes me guilty of murder.
      - endominus 2y ago
        I'm almost certain that's not true (at least, not in my own jurisdiction). Conspiracy to commit murder, perhaps. "Murder for hire" is apparently the DoJ term (https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/murder-hire-convict-sentenced-ten-years-prison https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/murder-hire-convict-sen...). But that's not the situation here anyway. Is an architect guilty of murder if a building he designs collapses? Flaws in his design may have contributed. What about the construction company that built it? Perhaps they were incompetent and sloppy in their construction. The suppliers might be at fault as well; they could have sold inferior steel or concrete. What about the politicians that passed faulty legislation for building codes? Does some of the blame not fall on them too? Or the maintenance company that skimped on their maintenance checks and could possibly have seen the cracks forming? There is very rarely, despite the assurances of five-whys and other incident response practices, a clear-cut and obvious point of failure when complex systems break. The Boeing situation was a failure of culture, people say. Maybe. They justify criminal charges on the C-suite as a result. Maybe even that is just, for a certain definition of justice. But the buck doesn't have to stop there. Where are the criminal charges for the shareholders, who chose to keep these criminals at the head of the company? Where are the charges against the FAA, who continued to do leave Boeing to be its own regulator? Why not cast blame on the previous CEOs as well? After all, culture takes a long time to change, and the current CEO has only been in the role since 2020 - the MAX's first flight was in 2016!
- ben_w 2y ago
  1) It's the CEOs job to know. Carelessness, recklessness, wilful ignorance, malice, these are all terms of art and can lead to different liabilities; as a non-lawyer I don't trust my own understanding as to the exact boundaries between them. 2) If the CEO knows, then the word "conspiracy" comes to mind, does not require them to perform the criminal act, only their agreement to act.
- thoronton 2y ago
  The people in charge have to ensure that the right measures are in place to prevent illegal behavior. If they do not do that, then they are liable. At Boeing, effective measures are obviously not in place.

constantcrying 2y ago

That is a perversion of justice. You can not transfer criminal liability for money. Your employees can be criminals regardless of culture. The precedent this would set is ridiculous.

abenga 2y ago
Who should be responsible for a company's crimes if not the people who make decisions in the company? If we want companies to have legal personhood, how about they suffer the same perils of breaking the law (prison time, etc)? Fines are just a price we set on breaking the law.
- constantcrying 2y ago
  >Who should be responsible for a company's crimes if not the people who make decisions in the company? The person committing that crime. >If we want companies to have legal personhood, how about they suffer the same perils of breaking the law (prison time, etc)? Companies can not be put to jail.
  - abenga 2y ago
    The people committing the crime include those who make the decisions. Hiring an assassin makes me guilty of murder.
    - endominus 2y ago
      I'm almost certain that's not true (at least, not in my own jurisdiction). Conspiracy to commit murder, perhaps. "Murder for hire" is apparently the DoJ term (https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/murder-hire-convict-sentenced-ten-years-prison https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/murder-hire-convict-sen...). But that's not the situation here anyway. Is an architect guilty of murder if a building he designs collapses? Flaws in his design may have contributed. What about the construction company that built it? Perhaps they were incompetent and sloppy in their construction. The suppliers might be at fault as well; they could have sold inferior steel or concrete. What about the politicians that passed faulty legislation for building codes? Does some of the blame not fall on them too? Or the maintenance company that skimped on their maintenance checks and could possibly have seen the cracks forming? There is very rarely, despite the assurances of five-whys and other incident response practices, a clear-cut and obvious point of failure when complex systems break. The Boeing situation was a failure of culture, people say. Maybe. They justify criminal charges on the C-suite as a result. Maybe even that is just, for a certain definition of justice. But the buck doesn't have to stop there. Where are the criminal charges for the shareholders, who chose to keep these criminals at the head of the company? Where are the charges against the FAA, who continued to do leave Boeing to be its own regulator? Why not cast blame on the previous CEOs as well? After all, culture takes a long time to change, and the current CEO has only been in the role since 2020 - the MAX's first flight was in 2016!
ben_w 2y ago
1) It's the CEOs job to know. Carelessness, recklessness, wilful ignorance, malice, these are all terms of art and can lead to different liabilities; as a non-lawyer I don't trust my own understanding as to the exact boundaries between them. 2) If the CEO knows, then the word "conspiracy" comes to mind, does not require them to perform the criminal act, only their agreement to act.
thoronton 2y ago
The people in charge have to ensure that the right measures are in place to prevent illegal behavior. If they do not do that, then they are liable. At Boeing, effective measures are obviously not in place.