Indeed. And handsome whistleblower bonuses (i.e. enough to retire on) should be paid to individuals who are in a position to report the company principals to appropriate authorities (with easily obtainable evidence of course), so that they can be dealt with accordingly.
Instead of just casually mentioning to others at the water cooler that this is what their client/employer was doing, as if it were just one of those things.
Is this money coming from the government or the company?
Because I’m guessing the startup using fake job postings to signal growth probably doesn’t have enough runway to cover the handsome retirement of a 30-year old.
What are you going to do, rat on your employer to get money from them they know they can’t pay so they just go out of business and you lose your job?
Just because they can't pay it doesn't mean there shouldn't be repercussions. That would be like saying that a person can't be fined because they don't have the money. AFAIK the judicial system will happily levy costs on you that you can't afford, and it is 100% a "you problem".
This is why I don't understand people who are against the death penalty and punishing mandatory minimum sentences. As you correctly point out, harsh retribution is a good deterrent.
Really? I thought death penalty is typically reserved for premeditated acts where the criminal did actually think it through.
Until we can get into the criminal's brain we can't know the extent to which they thought it through.
We're just basically saying, "Anybody would know that they shouldn't kill somebody and it seems like they probably thought about killing this person before they did it."
I doubt there's going to be a stat that satisfies you here, but this one is interesting:
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/murder-rates...
I haven't ever seen non-anecdotal evidence (flimsy or otherwise) that makes me think the death penalty acts as a deterrent.
Sure we can, based on their actions. For example, we know that the guy that killed 60 people in Vegas planned it out ahead of time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting#Prepar....
I'm not the one saying that the penalty works as a deterrent. It probably didn't in this case since the guy killed himself. Although he may have preferred death to a life in prison.
What about a situation where someone kills their wife after work one day? How will you know if he had thought about it for a while or just snapped? Obviously you will look at the evidence and see if there was clear evidence of planning or not. But if there's not how can you be confident in whether it was planned?
> I'm not the one saying that the penalty works as a deterrent.
Good, because it doesn't.
> What about a situation where someone kills their wife after work one day? > Obviously you will look at the evidence and see if there was clear evidence of planning or not
Right, and in this court can choose not to execute him based on this uncertainty.
The problem with death is you can't undo it. If you mess up, including systemic mess ups, it's over.
Much of this tomfoolery will quickly end if you actually start holding people accountable. Giving some corporation a fine is not that.
Not equivalent to the most attractive exit they hope to make (if they stayed with the company and if it paid out), of course -- but enough to make it worth their trouble, to hedge the diminished employment prospects that will be incurred as a price for sticking their neck out, and to convince these companies that they're running a significant risk in pulling shenanigans like this.