[deleted]
Boeing to plead guilty to criminal fraud charge stemming from 737 MAX crashes
211–220 of 611 posts
Re: Boeing to plead guilty to criminal fraud charge stemming from 737 MAX crashes
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends on if it could be shown that the decision to not ground was motivated by a desire for profit or not.
Still not murder unless they intended for the deaths to occur.
> The felony murder rule is a rule that allows a defendant to be charged with first-degree murder for a killing that occurs during a dangerous felony, even if the defendant is not the killer.
Re: Boeing to plead guilty to criminal fraud charge stemming from 737 MAX crashes
#213Our governmental methods of punishment for corporations strike me as lacking. This seems similar to Wells Fargo, where ok, the company was fined, sued, made to pay restitution (somewhat) to victims. But underlying it all, the culture and incentives at the company that produced the situation didn't get fundamentally changed. Which often perpetuates across specific leaders, boards, and is a part of what a company is --…
Most corporations end up building systems that spread responsibility and make it very difficult for anyone to believe they can say no to things they disagree with. How many decisions are supposed to be made by groups where nobody can claim actual responsibility? Commitments that are supposedly made by a team, but where it's clear to the team they have to say yes? People get very nervous, and reviews tend to suffer, when you just ask for dodgy work orders in writing. Remembered the whole idea of the Toyota model, where everyone can theoretically stop the line? We often build systems that guarantee the opposite.
Regulating decision making in companies, however, as to make sure people have to look at their own personal risk when bad things are on the line is going to get a lot of pushback, precisely because that's very inconvenient. But without something like this, the Wells Fargo situation is the natural outcome that will keep repeating.
Re: Boeing to plead guilty to criminal fraud charge stemming from 737 MAX crashes
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "We don't negotiate with [economic] terrorists." This is just so silly. Shutting down a company results in people losing their jobs. No terrorists involved.
> Shutting down a company results in people losing their jobs. No terrorists involved. I'm always baffled by this unholy protection of "jobs". Making asbestos essentially illegal resulted in tens of thousands of people losing their jobs and shutting down coal plants will do the same. It makes no sense to protect jobs at all costs, and doing so can have very bad outcomes. If a company is doing something illegal or dan…
> I'm always baffled by this unholy protection of "jobs".
I wasn't invoking any unholy protection of jobs. It's very clear the context I was replying to: that "job loss" isn't "economic terrorism".
Can we not treat the comment section as that party game where people only read the previous sentence of the story and write a follow-on sentence? You have the whole thread available to you.
Re: Boeing to plead guilty to criminal fraud charge stemming from 737 MAX crashes
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
The president can only pardon federal crimes.
I don’t think he needs to. they will appeal based on the insanely broad immunity ruling and get the conviction overturned on procedural loophole created by the ruling - no evidence from his presidency even for unofficial acts and justice department will not retry a sitting president. He is likely to get the convictions even in the caroll defamation case for the same reason. Only the fraudulent valuation case is likel…
His conviction was based on criminal acts entirely when he was not president.
Re: Boeing to plead guilty to criminal fraud charge stemming from 737 MAX crashes
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
For spilling a hot coffee cup you get $ 2.7 million worth of punitive damages. But for killing more than 200 people and trying to hide the evidence, we'll charge you 200 million and call it a day. That's less per person than the price of a hot-coffee spill.
> For spilling a hot coffee cup you get $ 2.7 million worth of punitive damages. What's the context here?
Adding to the sibling comments:
There was also a lot of public mockery and political grandstanding, at the time, based on a mischaracterization of the suit.
Re: Boeing to plead guilty to criminal fraud charge stemming from 737 MAX crashes
#217Seems an extremely soft ball approach: • Under the deal, Boeing agreed to pay a $243.6 million fine and for an third-party monitor to be installed to monitor the company’s compliance. ~$240M seems pretty low for an industry where billions are commonly thrown about. • The deal spares Boeing from a trial just as the planemaker is trying to turn a corner in its safety and manufacturing crises. Sparing them from a trial…
I think someone else was fined 355~450 millions for fraud recently
If you scam the powers that be out of some real money (or just slightly expose their financial incompetence) that's when they suddenly know how how to hold individuals responsible. Pharma bro, Elizabeth Holmes, Delvey, SBF, etc.
The system views individual lives as less important than the confidence / stability / illusion of power of the holy market and those it is meant to benefit.
Re: Boeing to plead guilty to criminal fraud charge stemming from 737 MAX crashes
#218Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The problem is that finding the people responsible can be extremely hard > What Boeing really needs is a complete change in management culture Who is ultimately responsible for management at a company though? The CEO and the other C-level people. This isn't really the daunting difficult problem you make it out to be: the buck stops at the C-suite. Who else could possibly be ultimately responsible??
You can not punish someone for a crime they didn't commit and had no knowledge of. That is ridiculous and a perversion of justice.
Parents can absolutely be responsible (at least financially) for crimes that a minor child under their care did. Doesn't matter if they weren't around at the time and told them not to do it.
Besides, Understaffed/Poorly staffed orgs tend to have more issues like this anyway... which tends to be the result of executive decisions, right?
Being too insulated from day to day ops is a symptom, not an excuse.
Re: Boeing to plead guilty to criminal fraud charge stemming from 737 MAX crashes
#219Our governmental methods of punishment for corporations strike me as lacking. This seems similar to Wells Fargo, where ok, the company was fined, sued, made to pay restitution (somewhat) to victims. But underlying it all, the culture and incentives at the company that produced the situation didn't get fundamentally changed. Which often perpetuates across specific leaders, boards, and is a part of what a company is --…
Corporations understand and fear only 2 things.
Money. Control.
Either the fine should be high enough to alert investors and ensure that they make the company change its ways..
Or
The govt. should provisionally or in a timebound manner take a seat or two on the board.
Let the govt. Do this for a few companies, and every otger company will fall in line.
Corporations must be treated as children of the country they are born in. Sure, they become big, earn money for the govt. and are essentially independent. But if the kid goes naughty, a watchful eye and a rap on the knuckles is how you teach manners.
Re: Boeing to plead guilty to criminal fraud charge stemming from 737 MAX crashes
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
The real world isn’t that simple. If you just dismantled Boeing and sent everyone to jail, thousands of people would lose their jobs. America would lose a competitive edge compared to foreign adversaries. As I said in the original comment, the difficulty is in punishing the people responsible while maintaining/rebuilding systems that have better outcomes. Blowing everything up doesn’t do that.
>America would lose a competitive edge compared to foreign adversaries. So murder is okay in a private company if it is important enough for "a competitive edge"? That means specifically that they are above the law.
Did I say that? I said it’s complicated and the world isn’t as simple as destroying things because people do evil things.
The lack of nuance in this conversation is getting tiring.