21 ms·

>The internal investigation has determined that our CEO had no knowledge of this, and that the bloody pig mask was all the idea of the people who make less mone

by gruez 4mo ago

>The internal investigation has determined that our CEO had no knowledge of this, and that the bloody pig mask was all the idea of the people who make less money, and also we fired the CEO for unrelated reasons. That's exactly how the criminal justice system should work? If you can't prove a particular person is responsible, you don't have a case. That's exactly why they prosecuted the company as a whole instead, because easier to prove the company as a whole did something, rather than a specific person.

jackb4040 4mo ago
No one can prove the CEO did anything, but whatever it was it was worth 500x as much as the average employee.
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
tombert 4mo ago
The issue is that an internal investigation is not an impartial source. I agree, in this hypothetical if there's no evidence the that the CEO committed a crime he/she shouldn't go to jail. But considering that "internal investigators" are likely hired (directly or indirectly) by the CEO, are likely shareholders in the company, they have little incentive to fully investigate. The police certainly aren't perfect, but they at least have less of an incentive to lie about this.
- gruez 4mo ago
  > But considering that "internal investigators" are likely hired (directly or indirectly) by the CEO, are likely shareholders in the company, and so they have little incentive to fully investigate. Right, but no prosecutor is like "well the CEO had an internal investigation so we're not going to investigate"
  - tombert 4mo ago
    I feel like that is exactly what happens for anything but the most serious crimes. Keep in mind, a lot of internal investigations are not reported to the public and we never hear about them. Part of the reason that they're "internal" is so that they stay internal; we only hear about ones that leak. Even for very serious crimes (e.g. sexual harassment or assault) these internal investigations end up being "sufficient", and the police don't bother.
    - gruez 4mo ago
      Right, but unless internal investigations are somehow deterring investigations by prosecutors, I don't see what the issue is. Would you rather than there's no internal investigations?
      - tombert 4mo ago
        I'd rather things like sexual assault get directly reported to the police instead of having people directly paid by the accused LARPing as investigators, yes.
        gruez 4mo ago
        You're dodging my earlier question. Do you think internal investigations are substituting for actual criminal investigations, and if so do you have evidence for it? All you're seemingly saying so far is that you don't like internal investigations at all, even if they are done when no criminal investigations would have taken place
        tombert 4mo ago
        I think that internal investigations are acting as a substitute for actual criminal investigations. By definition if the investigations weren't made public I can't know about them, but you can look at someone like Andy Rubin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Rubin#Sexual_harassment_allegations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Rubin#Sexual_harassment_a... As far as I'm aware there was never any investigation from real police for him.

by gruez 4mo ago

jackb4040 4mo ago

No one can prove the CEO did anything, but whatever it was it was worth 500x as much as the average employee.

deleted 4mo ago

[deleted]

tombert 4mo ago

The issue is that an internal investigation is not an impartial source. I agree, in this hypothetical if there's no evidence the that the CEO committed a crime he/she shouldn't go to jail. But considering that "internal investigators" are likely hired (directly or indirectly) by the CEO, are likely shareholders in the company, they have little incentive to fully investigate. The police certainly aren't perfect, but they at least have less of an incentive to lie about this.

gruez 4mo ago
> But considering that "internal investigators" are likely hired (directly or indirectly) by the CEO, are likely shareholders in the company, and so they have little incentive to fully investigate. Right, but no prosecutor is like "well the CEO had an internal investigation so we're not going to investigate"
- tombert 4mo ago
  I feel like that is exactly what happens for anything but the most serious crimes. Keep in mind, a lot of internal investigations are not reported to the public and we never hear about them. Part of the reason that they're "internal" is so that they stay internal; we only hear about ones that leak. Even for very serious crimes (e.g. sexual harassment or assault) these internal investigations end up being "sufficient", and the police don't bother.
  - gruez 4mo ago
    Right, but unless internal investigations are somehow deterring investigations by prosecutors, I don't see what the issue is. Would you rather than there's no internal investigations?
    - tombert 4mo ago
      I'd rather things like sexual assault get directly reported to the police instead of having people directly paid by the accused LARPing as investigators, yes.
      - gruez 4mo ago
        You're dodging my earlier question. Do you think internal investigations are substituting for actual criminal investigations, and if so do you have evidence for it? All you're seemingly saying so far is that you don't like internal investigations at all, even if they are done when no criminal investigations would have taken place
        tombert 4mo ago
        I think that internal investigations are acting as a substitute for actual criminal investigations. By definition if the investigations weren't made public I can't know about them, but you can look at someone like Andy Rubin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Rubin#Sexual_harassment_allegations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Rubin#Sexual_harassment_a... As far as I'm aware there was never any investigation from real police for him.