Comment by bawolff

> Get some sort of job in the company, do something illegal, threaten your manager with going to the feds, since at this point they are criminally liable for your act.

Not if the manager goes to the feds himself.

> But i still think morally its important that we punish people for things they actually did (or failed to do), not just by mere association.

Well imagine you're a CEO and you not only didn't setup protections against wrongdoing but rather created a system of incentives that makes it beneficial to close your eyes to things.

In the Dieselgate the engineer went to jail, in Skyguide the air traffic controller got stabbed, the executives walk free.

> Get some sort of job in the company, do something illegal, threaten your manager with going to the feds, since at this point they are criminally liable for your act.

I guess I left out a key word in my conclusion there: "You are presumptively liable." The point is to shift the burden of proof. If it can be proven that someone else willfully did the violation (especially in order to screw you), that might be a defense. But the point is that the default assumption should be that greater responsibility/authority equals greater liability, and the burden should be on those with that responsibility/authority to prove that they are not liable.

> But i still think morally its important that we punish people for things they actually did (or failed to do), not just by mere association.

But that's it exactly. What they failed to do was ensure that bad things didn't happen while they were in charge.

> Although perhaps something like an enhanced version of how supervisory responsibility in war crimes works would make sense - basically the way that works is if you are aware or ought to have been aware that someone under you is commiting a crime, and you don't investigate/take measures to punish/take measures to stop them, you are on the hook for the crime.

Yes, something like that. The key phrase being "or ought to have been".