undefined | Better HN

0 pointsarcherx1y ago0 comments

Make the CEO responsible, want those big rewards (high ceo pay) get ready to deal with big responsibility. I’m sure if CEOs were criminally liable things would change very quickly.

0 comments

Arnt1y ago

So the CEO says in court: «I am now aware that some of the issues on your jira backlog caused damage to our customers. The very-well-compensated programming team leader and the highly paid programmers reported to me that there were no such issues in the backlog, and based on their written assessment I decided to release the new version. It would be impossible for me to check every detail, and therefore unreasonable for the jury to expect that.» And the jury agrees, and someone goes to prison but it isn't the CEO.

A4ET8a8uTh01y ago

Eh, my current project manager does not even seem to check every detail and we appear to be moving by pretty dashboards, so I expect CEO will have even smaller, simpler dashboard. Fwiw, if CEO got in front of the jury, I would expect things to look bleak for the CEO ( it is not exactly a favored class now ). There is a reason it does not happen often ( for example outright fraud ala Bankman ).

archerxOP1y ago

Nice strawman. The prosecution reminds the jury that the CEO got paid 33 million before bonuses and the programmers only got 150k.

constantcrying1y ago

The criminal precedent of punishing a person for a crime they didn't commit and had no knowledge of is so bad that I honestly didn't think any reasonable person could come up with this.

doctor_eval1y ago

There were two crashes. The CEO most certainly should have known about the problems after the first one.

It’s the CEO’s job to ensure that sufficient measures are in place to prevent failure. They should not be punished for accidents; they should be punished if the accidents were reasonably predictable.

Which was most certainly the case when they decided to the redundant AoA sensor an optional extra.

constantcrying1y ago

>There were two crashes. The CEO most certainly should have known about the problems after the first one.

Then drag him to court for that. But this is totally different to charging him with the crimes of other people he couldn't have known about.

1 more reply

robertlagrant1y ago

> There were two crashes. The CEO most certainly should have known about the problems after the first one.

Possibly, but not if it were a one-off. Are the airlines that chose to keep flying Boeing 737 MAX not equally (or more) responsible?

1 more reply

Gujdek1y ago

In cases like this it should be even harsher than a prison or monetary punishment, I like what China is doing by executing White collar criminals such as CEO's for negligence, fraud, causing death etc:

https://www.businessinsider.com/chinese-white-collar-crimina...

sudosysgen1y ago

There is immense precedent to punish a person for a crime they were responsible for and that they should have known was happening.

constantcrying1y ago

The software issues definitely were not something the CEO should have known about.

2 more replies

lordnacho1y ago

Yeah, this is key. I don't see why the system shouldn't be set up that way. Company does something criminal, now boss is considered a criminal.

constantcrying1y ago

That is a perversion of justice. You can not transfer criminal liability for money.

Your employees can be criminals regardless of culture. The precedent this would set is ridiculous.

abenga1y ago

Who should be responsible for a company's crimes if not the people who make decisions in the company? If we want companies to have legal personhood, how about they suffer the same perils of breaking the law (prison time, etc)? Fines are just a price we set on breaking the law.

1 more reply

thoronton1y ago

The people in charge have to ensure that the right measures are in place to prevent illegal behavior. If they do not do that, then they are liable. At Boeing, effective measures are obviously not in place.

ben_w1y ago

1) It's the CEOs job to know. Carelessness, recklessness, wilful ignorance, malice, these are all terms of art and can lead to different liabilities; as a non-lawyer I don't trust my own understanding as to the exact boundaries between them.

2) If the CEO knows, then the word "conspiracy" comes to mind, does not require them to perform the criminal act, only their agreement to act.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

Arnt1y ago

A4ET8a8uTh01y ago

archerxOP1y ago

Nice strawman. The prosecution reminds the jury that the CEO got paid 33 million before bonuses and the programmers only got 150k.

constantcrying1y ago

The criminal precedent of punishing a person for a crime they didn't commit and had no knowledge of is so bad that I honestly didn't think any reasonable person could come up with this.

doctor_eval1y ago

There were two crashes. The CEO most certainly should have known about the problems after the first one.

Which was most certainly the case when they decided to the redundant AoA sensor an optional extra.

constantcrying1y ago

>There were two crashes. The CEO most certainly should have known about the problems after the first one.

Then drag him to court for that. But this is totally different to charging him with the crimes of other people he couldn't have known about.

1 more reply

robertlagrant1y ago

> There were two crashes. The CEO most certainly should have known about the problems after the first one.

Possibly, but not if it were a one-off. Are the airlines that chose to keep flying Boeing 737 MAX not equally (or more) responsible?

1 more reply

Gujdek1y ago

https://www.businessinsider.com/chinese-white-collar-crimina...

sudosysgen1y ago

There is immense precedent to punish a person for a crime they were responsible for and that they should have known was happening.

constantcrying1y ago

The software issues definitely were not something the CEO should have known about.

2 more replies

lordnacho1y ago

Yeah, this is key. I don't see why the system shouldn't be set up that way. Company does something criminal, now boss is considered a criminal.

constantcrying1y ago

That is a perversion of justice. You can not transfer criminal liability for money.

Your employees can be criminals regardless of culture. The precedent this would set is ridiculous.

abenga1y ago

1 more reply

thoronton1y ago

ben_w1y ago

2) If the CEO knows, then the word "conspiracy" comes to mind, does not require them to perform the criminal act, only their agreement to act.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse