Comment by DrScientist
7 days ago
I'd agree at a personal/moral level there is equal responsibility. However that doesn't recognise both the power and risk/reward imbalance here.
If you, as an employee did this - maybe you'd add a few dollars to your stock options over time. If your Zuck - that's potentially billions.
And in terms of downside - if you are Zuck and stop it in the company - there is no comeback - if you are an engineer blowing the whistle - you may find it hard to work in the industry ever again - and only one of those two actually needs to work.
Sounds like a typical blurring of responsibility through bureaucracy. "If Zak is a billionaire, then he is responsible, but since he essentially did nothing wrong, then no one will be held accountable." Total nonsense.
There are specific crimes, and there are specific people who planned this crimes, specific peoples who ordered them to be carried out, and who carried them out. And these people should be held accountable for these crimes. Even if they work 60 hours a week for minimum wage and would have been fired if they hadn't committed them. They should have quit in such cases, not committed crimes.
And on the other hand, if your employees, without your knowledge, somehow decided that the only way they could reach their targets was to commit a crime, why should you be held responsible for that? Even if you have 20 megayachts and your employees work 60 hours a week for minimum wage.
> if your employees, without your knowledge, somehow decided that the only way they could reach their targets was to commit a crime, why should you be held responsible for that?
Thats where "known or should have known" becomes relevant. It's your company, it's your responsiblity to know what they are doing.
No, what you are suggesting is a typical strategy of avoiding punishment and creating an opportunity to break the law. A very common strategy, used everywhere, especially in dictatorial and socialist regimes.
There is a substitution of one real crime, committed by real people, for a crime "they didn’t know, but should have" against other people, for which there is no real responsibility, while the real criminals are declared to be simply "cogs" in the system.
As a result, no one is held accountable for a crime for which dozens of people who directly committed it could go to prison for many years, because the person held responsible is a high-ranking manager who "should have known, but did not know," who himself issues "a severe reprimand" or assigns a tiny fine for it.
Thus, the entire system is drowning in crimes, the commission of crimes becomes a REQUIREMENT of the system and the commission of crimes becomes a guarantee of the loyalty to the system.
3 replies →
It's complex - that's why you have judges and juries - to make judgements.
I'm saying leaders bear more responsibility than foot soldiers - I'm not saying foot soldiers don't also have a responsibility - but 'I didn't physically do it' isn't a defence for those that gave the orders/ created a culture where it happened.
Sure, Zuck might not really known and that is a mitigation. But I think the interesting question here is what does everybody ( in the commpany ) think would have happened if he did find out? Would it have been a 'well done, that's clever/cool nod and a wink', or would they expected to have lost their jobs?
It's easy to frame laws to make it the leaders responsibility - it's their job to know - their job to act if they find out - their job to put systems and procedures in place to ensure illegal activity isn't happening on their watch.
And back to the billionaires/foot soldiers thing. Motive also matters - if people did it because of fear of losing their jobs that's a mitigating factor - if people materially benefited to the tune of millions - that's another factor. If you steal - the punishment scales with the value of the theft - same principal - if you want the law to be a deterrent then the punishment has to fit the crime. A fine of 1 million isn't going to stop Zuck doing it again is it?
>those that gave the orders
That's part of the crime. Of course, the one who gave the order must bear responsibility. It's just that if the subordinate also bears full responsibility, there is a high probability that there will be no order to commit a crime, because everyone will expect that there will be no criminal ready to commit the crime.
>what does everybody ( in the commpany ) think would have happened if he did find out?
Why is this important? A crime has been committed. The people who committed it must be held accountable. The lack of responsibility of the direct criminals allows for the existence of a system where the commission of crimes is not punished, employees cover up each other's crimes, and those who refuse to commit them are fired. Not the other way around.
>It's easy to frame laws to make it the leaders responsibility
Where are the examples?
>it's their job to know
Yes, and this is exactly the substitution that occurs: instead of responsibility for a real crime, there is responsibility for a poorly performed job. A great system for a leader to use to get his subordinates to commit crimes for his own benefit.
>if people did it because of fear of losing their jobs
Then they should bear more serious responsibility than those who committed the same crime for personal profit.
Because this is already organized crime, more dangerous for society and more protected from law enforcement agencies. Therefore, the direct perpetrator of the crime, the one who gave the order to commit the crime and those who tried to cover up the criminals - should be considered an organized criminal group, with all the consequences.
And Zuc, if he did not order the crimes to be committed - it would be great for him to get a brand new mega-yacht. So that the next time he starts winking strangely or giving out KPIs that are easiest to achieve by committing crimes - people would think with their own heads, and not start engaging in organized criminal activities.
1 reply →