Just because 'that is the way things are done' doesn't make it right.
You (the hypothetical you, not the real you) are responsible for your own actions. The company doesn't control how you act, you do. It's fair enough that the company is held accountable, but you should be equally held accountable for willful negligence, gross misconduct, unprofessional conduct etc. etc. That's on you.
Just because this prosecutor is a Government official, doesn't immediately remove his culpability, nor his accountability. He was wilfully negligent and ruined an innocent man's life. The Government didn't do that, he did that. It should be on him to fix it. He should be held accountable to the extent of his means to make it right. If it is beyond his means to make it right, it should then fall to the Government to provide the shortfall.
If it had been another person then it would have been appropriate to hold that person responsible. Individuals don't get free passes to do unethical acts just because corporations exist to take their liabilities. It's still beneficial to make examples of them.
I have to disagree, when people realize the risk is personal they'll take care to make sure what they're doing is right. Just following orders is never a valid excuse. Of course we should stop with the prosecutor we should continue on to try and fix the machine, but at the very least if prosecutors know they're responsible for their actions it'll add an additional check to the system.
If they have permission of government officials then what?
We can hold companies accountable but how do you hold government accountable? In a meaningful way? Certainly we can find a myriad of excuses not to fire an government worker for a mistake I am fine with doing the same for this as well.
The key is to learn from it and put into place processes that stop it from reoccurring. We need to weigh the penalties to the harm caused. Frankly, if no one lost their life or livelihood I don't think seeking the outcome you suggest is warranted.
The blame for the suicide ultimately cannot be laid anywhere but on Aaron's shoulders. But that does not mean that everything else is hunky dory. I would have (and DID) objected to the prosecutor's overzealous prosecution of this case even if Aaron had not died. Nor is it fully the fault of a single prosecutor who was using the same techniques used routinely. Perhaps a change to the system is needed.
More simply: the ultimate fault may be (is) Aaron's, but that does not mean that it is "no one's fault but Aaron's" -- there is blame enough to go round.
The person shirking their duty knew the risks and was even profiting from their negligent behavior. Meanwhile a person lost their life who has nothing to gain from this. I blame the employer and the employee. Employers shouldn’t set their employees up to fail, and employees should know a risky proposition when they see it.
Yes!!! Exactly and precisely this. The actual individuals should be accountable for decisions they made that ruined other peoples lives for wrongful cause.
Too often political decisions have been predicated on the notion of cost-free bullying of lower status humans to serve as grist for the mills of polemical political opposition and discourse, to feed careers. The bullfighter needs a bull and ideally it should look scary before the predetermined outcome of slaying the scapegoat takes place.
While corporations and governments only punish the people with unilateral action of malice or ignorance, one can never truly punish an institution, one seeks individuals who are responsible in the hopes of reducing the willingness of individuals to commit such acts given the possibility of individual punishment.
Nothing says impunity like impunity.
Fining the institution does nothing to discourage career hit-and-ruin experts who keep climbing the career ladder upon the backs of others.
It's not at all MIT's fault, blame lies with the prosecutor. In fact, blame also lies with the prosecutor when the defendant didn't end up committing suicide; and by extension, the various societal institutions that one way or another have allowed such overzealous legal harassment to be accepted.
I understand your arguments, which in my view, "shift the blame", and in your view, "charge with at least some responsibility" to the government. The problem I see is that this sort of arguments, if accepted as OK/inevitable and universalized lead to a dilution of responsibility that would make no one fully accountable for any intentional wrongdoing: for example, if you pay for your car to be repaired at your regular car repair shop, but the mechanic knowingly used parts that were not certified or due to time pressure skipped standard checks, and you let someone drive your car a year later, and there is an accident that was caused as a consequence of that sloppy repair-work, do you share responsibility for your oversight? - You might argue you do; well, I would argue you don't.
But what outcome are you aiming for with your comment?
The prosecutor does share some responsibility, as does Aaron, as does MIT, as does JSTOR, as does the general judicial system and environment that allowed this to happen.
Doing a drive by 'He only has himself to blame' style comment, is ignorant at best, and out right trolling at worst.
As shitty as this is I don't think it's fair to label the individual a victim. A contract is a contract, and personal responsibility is a requirement in a free-ish society.
But what good is responsibility? The point is this shouldn't happen in the first place. There's no way someone can make up for something bad they did in the past. Assigning blame after the fact seems hollow to me.
It's a tradeoff. "If men were angels no government would be necessary." Personal responsibility might be an ideal but it can't be an absolute. Trading lives for a "glass of whiskey" is morally bankrupt.
We need personal responsibility for government officials.
There are quite a few people in the whole process from surveillance to arresting and detaining them, that should have noticed, that they did nothing illegal (or atleast are employed there to be the ones who should be noticing stuff like this).
Engineer builds a house, uses way less material then needed to be safe, because it saves money,... then house collapses, engineer knew (or should have known) how much concrete/rebar is needed, still approved it, criminal negligence, jail. Why not the same for police, prosecutors, judges, etc.?
You're confusing ethics with legal liability. Nobody is saying IT is ethically responsible, they're saying they are legally responsible since the entire reason they get a paycheck is to prevent these sorts of things. Reduce it to a contractual matter if that assuages your conscience.
If you hire a bodyguard and still get shot while the bodyguard is on his phone both the perpetrator goes to jail and the bodyguard gets fired/pays restitution. Not that unheard of. It's not like one person gets all of the legal and ethical blame and everyone else is entirely absolved.
Don't make it entirely on the State. The individuals who are acting negligently on behalf of the State need to have an incentive to do the right thing as well.
IMO everyone related to a corporate crime should be responsible. If a company dumps toxic waste in to a river, the person who pressed the dump button, the person who told them to and any management that signed off on the idea should all be personally as responsible as if I just took a bucket and walked down to the local river.
Perhaps some exceptions for people who could not be expected to understand the law, for example an untrained retail staff being tricked in to violating laws usually only understood by management or legal teams.
You (the hypothetical you, not the real you) are responsible for your own actions. The company doesn't control how you act, you do. It's fair enough that the company is held accountable, but you should be equally held accountable for willful negligence, gross misconduct, unprofessional conduct etc. etc. That's on you.
Just because this prosecutor is a Government official, doesn't immediately remove his culpability, nor his accountability. He was wilfully negligent and ruined an innocent man's life. The Government didn't do that, he did that. It should be on him to fix it. He should be held accountable to the extent of his means to make it right. If it is beyond his means to make it right, it should then fall to the Government to provide the shortfall.
reply