Comment by SoftTalker
7 days ago
> 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.
So your argument is that because the ring leaders, and the people who benefit the most from the crimes, almost always get off - we should forget about them and just penalize the people who have to do what they are told because they need to feed their families?
That would seem to be a recipe for more crime, not less.
Note i don't think anyone is saying those directly involved should get off scot-free, just that those really responsible shouldn't.
No, my argument is that the system you propose results in ring leaders escaping responsibility and people having to commit crimes in order to feed their families. Look at any socialist country, almost any dictatorship, or the work of any bureaucratic organizations related to the committing crimes.
The obligation to commit crimes in such systems arises precisely from the ability of the ring leader to take responsibility from the criminal onto himself to a significantly lesser extent, citing the fact that he did not commit the crime, but simply did not take something into account or did not know something.
> Note i don't think anyone is saying those directly involved should get off scot-free
But this is exactly what the existence of such a system leads to: the directly involved criminals escape responsibility, or their punishment is significantly reduced because most of the responsibility falls on the system and no one in particular bears full responsibility.
And if the performer bears full responsibility, there will be much fewer crimes, because in this case the performer will already know that he will bear full responsibility, that other employees, fearing full responsibility, will not cover for him, that his boss, who puts him in conditions requiring the commission of a crime, will not be able to relieve him of this responsibility by spreading it on himself or shifting it upwards with blurring. In such a system, the main beneficiary will no longer be able to demand that workers commit crimes - because no one wants to risk to become the scapegoat with no additional profits.
1 reply →