4 ms·

> Should Eric Schmidt be in jail for his role in the employee wage suppression collusion? Er, why shouldn't he be? I can think of three main likely arguments w

by leoc 12y ago

> Should Eric Schmidt be in jail for his role in the employee wage suppression collusion? Er, why shouldn't he be? I can think of three main likely arguments why he shouldn't: i) what he did breached civil but not criminal law: if so then obviously he shouldn't be in jail. I don't know whether that's the case though. I also don't know if he is personally liable for civil damages, and if so why he hasn't been chased for those. (And that's not going into the question of whether his actions should have been made criminal offences by law, and why they haven't been.) ii) the higher standard of evidence in criminal prosecutions, the first issue you raised. This is of course a real issue in criminal cases, but—speaking as a non-lawyer, non-expert who hasn't been following the story very closely—the evidence on this matter doesn't look at all lacking to me. AFAICS, if Eric Schmidt had been discussing a murder rather than salary collusion in the communications discussed by http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-google-recruitment-emails-lawsuit-2014-1 http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-google-recruitment-emai... no-one would be likely to suggest that the evidence was too weak for a criminal prosecution. iii) Eric Schmidt is a nice person like us, and jail isn't really for nice people like us. I hope the egregiousness and total unacceptability of this argument is clear to everyone without any need for explanation. So, yes, why shouldn't Eric Schmidt be in jail? As to the financial sector, while it is obviously difficult to prosecute many financial crimes, I am not convinced that this is the primary explanation for the shortage of convictions lately. I am reasonably convinced by the argument http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2014/10/liars-loans-aint-rocket-science.html http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2014/10/liars-loans-aint-... that similarly complex cases were successfully prosecuted in the S&L scandal in the '80s, and that the primary difference between then and now is lack of resources and political will.

tomp 12y ago
> As to the financial sector, while it is obviously difficult to prosecute many financial crimes, I am not convinced that this is the primary explanation for the shortage of convictions lately. One of the primary explanations is that banks have become "too big to fail", and if you criminally charge a bank, you effectively make it fail. Basically, banks are powerful enough to get away with murder. http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/dec/11/hsbc-fine-prosecution-money-laundering http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/dec/11/hsbc-fine-pr... "Had the US authorities decided to press criminal charges, HSBC would almost certainly have lost its banking licence in the US [...] The bank processed cash for Mexico's Sinaloa cartel, regarded as the most powerful and deadly drug gang in the world, among others."
- leoc 12y ago
  That doesn't explain the non-prosecution of individual bank employees and officers though. In fact, if one accepts the TBTF argument, then the prosecution of individuals becomes even more important: because it is still perfectly possible to prosecute individual members even if the institution is (we assume for the sake of argument) untouchable, then it is the only way remaining to restrain the behaviour of the institution.
- toomuchtodo 12y ago
  > One of the primary explanations is that banks have become "too big to fail", and if you criminally charge a bank, you effectively make it fail. Basically, banks are powerful enough to get away with murder. So give the FDIC more power and a larger fund to draw on for bank failures. They already handle bank failures very very well, they'd be fantastic at spinning down banks accused and convicted of criminal activities. We dismantled Arthur Anderson for their complacency in the Enron criminial enterprise. Why not banks?
  - rayiner 12y ago
    > We dismantled Arthur Anderson for their complacency in the Enron criminial enterprise. Why not banks? And that was a terrible outcome. A huge, $10 billion a year corporation came crashing down, with tons of people losing their jobs, all because of the conduct of one team within the company that the rest of the enterprise had no knowledge of or control over. For a conviction that was overturned on appeal!
    - toomuchtodo 12y ago
      If dismantling the organization isn't an option, and punishing individuals isn't an option due to corporate liability limitations, where does that leave us?
RangerScience 12y ago
> Eric Schmidt is a nice person like us, and jail isn't really for nice people like us. Well, in theory, your sarcasm is correct: this is a ridiculous statement. In practice our jail system is fucked as is evidenced by the rate at which going to jail turns you into more of a criminal, and so yes, jail is not for "nice people like us". Of course, it's also "not for not nice people not like us", and Martha Stewart didn't seem to be turned into more of a criminal, so at his level of wealth maybe he would go a jail "for nice people like us." Annnd maybe I'm also totally wrong on this too; call me on it how you see fit.

by leoc 12y ago

tomp 12y ago

> As to the financial sector, while it is obviously difficult to prosecute many financial crimes, I am not convinced that this is the primary explanation for the shortage of convictions lately. One of the primary explanations is that banks have become "too big to fail", and if you criminally charge a bank, you effectively make it fail. Basically, banks are powerful enough to get away with murder. http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/dec/11/hsbc-fine-prosecution-money-laundering http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/dec/11/hsbc-fine-pr... "Had the US authorities decided to press criminal charges, HSBC would almost certainly have lost its banking licence in the US [...] The bank processed cash for Mexico's Sinaloa cartel, regarded as the most powerful and deadly drug gang in the world, among others."

leoc 12y ago
That doesn't explain the non-prosecution of individual bank employees and officers though. In fact, if one accepts the TBTF argument, then the prosecution of individuals becomes even more important: because it is still perfectly possible to prosecute individual members even if the institution is (we assume for the sake of argument) untouchable, then it is the only way remaining to restrain the behaviour of the institution.
toomuchtodo 12y ago
> One of the primary explanations is that banks have become "too big to fail", and if you criminally charge a bank, you effectively make it fail. Basically, banks are powerful enough to get away with murder. So give the FDIC more power and a larger fund to draw on for bank failures. They already handle bank failures very very well, they'd be fantastic at spinning down banks accused and convicted of criminal activities. We dismantled Arthur Anderson for their complacency in the Enron criminial enterprise. Why not banks?
- rayiner 12y ago
  > We dismantled Arthur Anderson for their complacency in the Enron criminial enterprise. Why not banks? And that was a terrible outcome. A huge, $10 billion a year corporation came crashing down, with tons of people losing their jobs, all because of the conduct of one team within the company that the rest of the enterprise had no knowledge of or control over. For a conviction that was overturned on appeal!
  - toomuchtodo 12y ago
    If dismantling the organization isn't an option, and punishing individuals isn't an option due to corporate liability limitations, where does that leave us?

RangerScience 12y ago

> Eric Schmidt is a nice person like us, and jail isn't really for nice people like us. Well, in theory, your sarcasm is correct: this is a ridiculous statement. In practice our jail system is fucked as is evidenced by the rate at which going to jail turns you into more of a criminal, and so yes, jail is not for "nice people like us". Of course, it's also "not for not nice people not like us", and Martha Stewart didn't seem to be turned into more of a criminal, so at his level of wealth maybe he would go a jail "for nice people like us." Annnd maybe I'm also totally wrong on this too; call me on it how you see fit.