The way to deal with this is to arrest a whole group of Amazon execs, and offer the usual deal - the first one to make a full confession and implicate others gets off, the others get prosecuted. This is official DOJ policy.[1]
[1] https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/sometimes-confession-is-go...
Corporate fines seem ineffective and almost useless , especially because these sorts of actions will often benefit the individuals undertaking them (principal agent problem). I suspect the motivation behind corporate fines is that they can be large monetary amounts, and look good for the investigator/agent/attorney.
That's why I included the "... prohibition on further compensation/employment by the company/organization...".
Less people are willing to gamble their lives. The threat of prison is more effective than the threat of losing some money.
Since you brought it up... reductio ad absurdum: The threat of execution is even effective than prison, shouldn't we 'spring for' that instead?
As per my sibling comment:
I think that a fine which meaningfully reduces an individual's means is possible, and preferable to using prison sentences to instill fear.
My view is that the extreme sentences provided for in legislation are causing many non-guilty people to plead to lesser offenses, which is a real problem. I also think that we shouldn't be crowding jails and prisons with people who have committed civil offenses.
I think you'd have a hard time proving that capitol punishment was a more effective deterrent than prison. It doesn't seem to be one for crimes like murder (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jels.12291).
If fines are to work they would have to meaningfully reduce an individual's standard of living and continue to enforce that. Otherwise what's to stop Amazon from having people lie to congress, get fined, and then "gift" them the money back with a heavy bonus? What's to stop Amazon's corporate buddies from hiring the liar with a massive bump and a bonus to cover the fine?
Some crimes justify "extreme sentences" and knowingly lying to congress should be one of them. I find a prison sentence far less extreme than forcing a person to a lower standard of living and preventing them from being to work for accept large amounts of money in the future.
That would also be an effective deterrent, more so than prison alone probably. Torture would be even better, especially torture of family, friends, and pets.
> My view is that the extreme sentences provided for in legislation are causing many non-guilty people to plead to lesser offenses, which is a real problem. I also think that we shouldn't be crowding jails and prisons with people who have committed civil offenses.
Everything has pros and cons. How many innocent people will plead to a lesser crime vs how much will crime be reduced by the threat of prison?
In lieu of a study to answer that, we have to rely on our experiences dealing with people. You seem to believe a criminal will be deterred by fines, but I disagree.
This isn’t the type of opinion that can be changed by arguing over the internet.
Personal fines and no prison time just tweak the risk/reward calculation a little bit. These executives make a lot of money, and I would guess if they are the type to do illegal behavior they wouldn't mind gambling if the reward is great enough. I could even see it making this behavior more likely to happen if it's clear that they won't go to jail for illegal behavior and all they have to worry about is a fine and losing their job.
Reductio ad absurdum: Getting executed is even scarier than prison, shouldn't we 'spring for' that instead?
I think that a fine which meaningfully reduces an individual's means is possible, and preferable to using prison sentences to instill fear.
My view is that the extreme sentences provided for in legislation are causing many non-guilty people to plead to lesser offenses, which is a real problem. I also think that we shouldn't be crowding jails and prisons with people who have committed civil offenses.
What do you believe prison is for? Do you think it works?
Prison time allows for disincentivizing as well as rehabilitation. Death sentence on the other hand…
Perhaps part of the problem are our prison conditions. And the minimal effort directed towards true rehabilitation. Fixing those might make prison time less ethically fraught.
Yes, I think there are a lot of extreme prison sentences in this country and we incarcerate way too many people. But I think it is ridiculous to be so lopsided with punishments and only put people without means in jail. White collar crimes like this one have a larger negative impact on society than some guy caught stealing a car and they should not get off with a slap on the wrist.
I don't think prison is for rehabilitation. Some humans act incredibly selfishly and if there are no consequences to bad actions, they will act selfishly and they will have a negative impact on society. Law enforcement and criminal justice is a balancing act with no perfect right answer. It is not tenable to be too far on either end of the spectrum and I think we need to try to strike that balance where crime is deterred enough but where we don't live in a police state dystopia that causes a depressed and miserable society. I don't really know where that point is, but I am all for equitable punishment of white collar criminals.
Maybe even extend that to all government suppliers...
False.
> before then, cops and the prosecutor only need "probable cause" which is typically understood to allow that evidence may be gathered later.
No, it isn't; probable cause must be based in evidence. For cases requiring indictment, this evidence is presented to a grand jury before charges can formally be filed; for cases where the conditions allowing warrantless arrest do not apply, it occurs in the presentation of evidence to support an arrest warrant; for other cases the evaluation (by hearing or otherwise) happens generally within 48 hours of arrest, and delay to gather evidence has specifically been ruled unconstitutional.
there are a lot of details that vary state by state, but i'll say that not all charges require a grand jury, and 48 hours is clearly "later"
Is Amazon Cosa Nostra nowadays? I find it hard to believe they'd be more scared of other execs than the government..
It mostly just lacks inspiration.
This is how you get false confessions and wrongful convictions. Especially for conspiracy where burden of proof is he-said/she-said
This isn't a dope dealer growing weed in his car and having his buddies sell it for him. These sorts of operations produce a lot of paperwork. As an employee who is actually tasked with building/working with all of these systems/processess, you don't get inducted into the secret conspiracy with a nod, wink, handshake, and a secret decoder ring.
* for poor people.