Bankruptcy court gave blanket immunity to executives in 9 out of 10 major cases
1–10 of 62 posts
Re: Bankruptcy court gave blanket immunity to executives in 9 out of 10 major cases
#2Article title is "How corporate chiefs dodge lawsuits over sexual abuse and deadly products". The HN guidelines ask "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize."
Re: Bankruptcy court gave blanket immunity to executives in 9 out of 10 major cases
#3It should be noted that giving criminals immunity is the entire damn point of the system.
The point of "immunity" is so that the lower-level criminals lose their 5th Amendment rights, and are therefore compelled to present evidence against their boss. The 5th Amendment in the USA states "Right against self-incrimination", but if you have immunity, you cannot self-incriminate.
So once you sign that immunity document, you can be compelled to speak anything in court. Even if you "forgot", once you sign over, you can be __forced__ to talk.
So yeah, I'm not entirely sure if "immunity given to group X" is a big problem? Its how courts work, its how we pin down the ringleader. Its often less important to get the lackeys, and more important for the officers to focus on the bosses.
---------
Without the presentation of this evidence, you never get a guilty plea. Remember, in the USA's court system, you need to __prove__ the defendant of wrongdoing.
That means you either need to convince people, or force people, to present evidence in court that's helpful to your case. These people are often insiders, and immunity is extremely useful for getting around 5th Amendment issues.
Re: Bankruptcy court gave blanket immunity to executives in 9 out of 10 major cases
#4It should be noted that giving criminals immunity is the entire damn point of the system. The point of "immunity" is so that the lower-level criminals lose their 5th Amendment rights, and are therefore compelled to present evidence against their boss. The 5th Amendment in the USA states "Right against self-incrimination", but if you have immunity, you cannot self-incriminate. So once you sign that immunity document,…
Bankruptcy isn't a criminal matter.
Re: Bankruptcy court gave blanket immunity to executives in 9 out of 10 major cases
#5>blanket immunity.
From civil lawsuits. They can still be charged criminally.
Re: Bankruptcy court gave blanket immunity to executives in 9 out of 10 major cases
#6It should be noted that giving criminals immunity is the entire damn point of the system. The point of "immunity" is so that the lower-level criminals lose their 5th Amendment rights, and are therefore compelled to present evidence against their boss. The 5th Amendment in the USA states "Right against self-incrimination", but if you have immunity, you cannot self-incriminate. So once you sign that immunity document,…
Maybe because the example they gave on the article they were going after one person crime (rape), and the case that caused outrage is where the guilty bosses are already the guilty bosses and they still got deals.
Would you not see any problem if (still using the article example) Weinstein was given immunity to report on his own rapes?
Also it compounds the rage as it was what happened to all the banks in 2008, all the air cias after 1st covid, etc.
Re: Bankruptcy court gave blanket immunity to executives in 9 out of 10 major cases
#7>blanket immunity. From civil lawsuits. They can still be charged criminally.
pointless. Most of those things are not crimes (mismanagement, bankruptcy) unless you can start the civil case for damages first to find the fraud that then becomes criminal. It's a well thought of plan.
Re: Bankruptcy court gave blanket immunity to executives in 9 out of 10 major cases
#8It should be noted that giving criminals immunity is the entire damn point of the system. The point of "immunity" is so that the lower-level criminals lose their 5th Amendment rights, and are therefore compelled to present evidence against their boss. The 5th Amendment in the USA states "Right against self-incrimination", but if you have immunity, you cannot self-incriminate. So once you sign that immunity document,…
Maybe because the example they gave on the article they were going after one person crime (rape), and the case that caused outrage is where the guilty bosses are already the guilty bosses and they still got deals. Would you not see any problem if (still using the article example) Weinstein was given immunity to report on his own rapes? Also it compounds the rage as it was what happened to all the banks in 2008, all t…
> Would you not see any problem if (still using the article example) Weinstein was given immunity to report on his own rapes?
Weinstein is the boss. So you'd never give him immunity to the case, he's the target.
If Weinstein had a close "ally", who was less important for justice but important to testify for the case... even if that "ally" had crimes associated with him, you'd want to give that "Hypothetical ally" immunity. _THEN_ you force the ally to talk (if the ally fails to talk in court, you throw him in jail for contempt of court, and take away their immunity).
Re: Bankruptcy court gave blanket immunity to executives in 9 out of 10 major cases
#9It should be noted that giving criminals immunity is the entire damn point of the system. The point of "immunity" is so that the lower-level criminals lose their 5th Amendment rights, and are therefore compelled to present evidence against their boss. The 5th Amendment in the USA states "Right against self-incrimination", but if you have immunity, you cannot self-incriminate. So once you sign that immunity document,…
well, unless the ringleader is one that got the immunity...
Re: Bankruptcy court gave blanket immunity to executives in 9 out of 10 major cases
#10Kind of wish the article would go into more details about the immunity agreements in question. Its hard to make a judgement on if these cases are inappropriate without knowing the details.
Some of the stuff in the article strike me as totally fine though. Like complaining that a legal settlement has too much legalese in it. Like, really?