zlacker

It's easy when it's 1 person to blame.

In an organisation which is connected to the government in many ways through partnerships and contracts, putting a face to a crime is much harder to do. There's no single accountable person who can be thrown under the bus.

It was more a collection of bad actions by actors that had their own motives but nothing that was ever explicitly mean to hurt people.

(Assuming you're referring to 737 MAX)

>>tedk-4+(OP)
There are names that can be found. While not everyone can be fairly thrown under the bus certain names can be found and those people can be blamed. Who approved the design? Who signed off on the inspection? There is a signature that points to at least one guilty party.

Doing this sets a precedent and an example that prevents people from frivolously permitting things that are unsafe if there is a risk you'll be thrown in jail.

>>tedk-4+(OP)
There is 100% a single name and that's the CEO. If CEO's were actually held liable, they would do a lot more to ensure they didn't end up in jail.

>>tedk-4+(OP)
This is a strange take. So what if it is more effort. I remember as a member of my cooperatives board, I was reading a lot of what-ifs. One was that if spikes of ice fell down and killed someone on the street, and it happened because of neglilence on the boards side, we would absolutely be under the gun.

The board should be responsible. You don't get to make $200m a year and just brush hundreds of lives off as a whoops.

>>berghe+Np
> The board should be responsible. You don't get to make $200m a year and just brush hundreds of lives off as a whoops.

I don't think you understand how capitalism works.

>>whitem+qr
Is rule of law more effective in non-capitalist jurisdictions?

>>whitem+qr
We understand. He's just talking about how justice should work from a hypothetical perspective.

Hypothetically we all want a justice system to be based on justice but everyone is well aware that the system is at its heart capitalistic.

It's ok to discuss hypotheticals.

>>tedk-4+(OP)
I totally agree. I think if we got better at holding organizations liable for their failure they would be a stronger incentive for them to weight responsible behavior more appropriately.

I think this would be greatly improve our society.

>>brigan+ut
Maybe, but capitalist rule of law makes hypothesis difficult to test.

Rule of law has probably been most influential under capitalist authoritarianism like Nazi Germany.

>>jeffwa+1o
If you punish the CEO for every illegal thing done in a corporation (often without their knowledge), then no wise person would want to be CEO. In order to function, large companies would have to make the CEO position largely ceremonial and appoint desperate risk-takers, and do the actual executive leadership somewhere else.

So a strict rule like that risks setting up a formal scapegoat situation which could then lead to the opposite effect.

>>marshr+WZ
> no wise person would want to be CEO

Hey, I'm already for it, you don't have to sell it to me.

>>marshr+WZ
Absolutely, the demand for 7 to 9 figure a year jobs that are contingent upon building a functional auditing and compliance org and not openly breaking law would completely evaporate.

I mean we have no lawyer or doctors for the same reason.

>>berghe+Np
> You don't get to make $200m a year and just brush hundreds of lives off as a whoops

That seems to be the most common occurrence in all fields...

>>tedk-4+(OP)
> There's no single accountable person who can be thrown under the bus.

There is: the CEO. This is the person put in charge to run the business against their principles [0]. This is the charter, set by the business, in how it should be run.

When the company fails to execute and people die because of these failures this is a systemic problem that is rooted within the control of a CEO. Nothing major happens in aviation without a lot of checks and balances. Boeing settled because the CEO lied. He should have gone to jail. Instead he was allowed to pay no social penalty and is making money and avoiding taxes [1].

Dennis Muilenburg killed people. He had the position to stop it. Yet he chose profits over the value of others lives. Dennis Muilenburg should be spending the remainder of his life behind bars or subject to fly in a 737 Max with the flawed MCAS that he said was safe for the rest of his life for any and all air travel.

[0] https://www.boeing.com/principles/values.page [1] https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/forme...

>>whitem+nN
Maybe? No examples?

If you're going to make an example of capitalism in particular then you should be able to justify it with non-capitalist examples. Are there some socialist or feudal states where the more powerful would lose a case like this?

>>jeffwa+1o
A CEO can’t be expected to know every single thing that happens in their company.