US Judge: Passengers in Fatal Boeing 737 MAX Crashes are 'Crime Victims' (reuters.com) 83
"A U.S. judge in Texas ruled on Friday that people killed in two Boeing 737 MAX crashes are legally considered 'crime victims,'" reports Reuters, "a designation that will determine what remedies should be imposed."
In December, some crash victims' relatives said the U.S. Justice Department violated their legal rights when it struck a January 2021 deferred prosecution agreement with the planemaker over two crashes that killed 346 people. The families argued the government "lied and violated their rights through a secret process" and asked U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor to rescind Boeing's immunity from criminal prosecution — which was part of the $2.5 billion agreement — and order the planemaker publicly arraigned on felony charges.
O'Connor ruled on Friday that "in sum, but for Boeing's criminal conspiracy to defraud the (Federal Aviation Administration), 346 people would not have lost their lives in the crashes."
Paul Cassell, a lawyer for the families, said the ruling "is a tremendous victory" and "sets the stage for a pivotal hearing, where we will present proposed remedies that will allow criminal prosecution to hold Boeing fully accountable."
Boeing did not immediately comment.
O'Connor ruled on Friday that "in sum, but for Boeing's criminal conspiracy to defraud the (Federal Aviation Administration), 346 people would not have lost their lives in the crashes."
Paul Cassell, a lawyer for the families, said the ruling "is a tremendous victory" and "sets the stage for a pivotal hearing, where we will present proposed remedies that will allow criminal prosecution to hold Boeing fully accountable."
Boeing did not immediately comment.
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
And start imprisoning the people responsible for making these decisions. Let those CxO's actually earn their money.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately you're going to find next to no CxO having enough technical knowledge related to this decision. Furthermore if you find some signature authorising it from a CxO you will guarantee they have plenty of people below them to deflect the blame to.
That's the problem here. CxOs work so abstractly that they won't go to jail. Some middle manager will do so and the CxO that was responsible for some nebulous act such as "cost cutting" rather than "we'll program this and do so poorly" will remain to further f--- the company into the ground.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Good (Score:2)
Do it like in accounting (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
That's the whole point of "Being responsible". If you don't know what you're signing off on, you can't be responsible, so why are you getting paid to "Be responsible".
The fact that's apparently not possible in the current climate only goes to show how fucked up everything has become, where responsibility has become completely meaningless.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the whole point of "Being responsible".
Indeed it is. But a great defence against criminal liability is the information you had available to you. No one expects MBA's at the top of the food chain to perform Weibull reliability analyses on failures of MCAS systems, that's again on the assumption that this little technicality ever even got to the CxO level, and I will bet good money on that it won't.
CxOs are abstract. At best some technical manager will find himself flung under a bus.
By the way you probably mean right, but you're using the word's i
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. I meant accountable. I realized that after posting it :P
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately you're going to find next to no CxO having enough technical knowledge related to this decision. Furthermore if you find some signature authorising it from a CxO you will guarantee they have plenty of people below them to deflect the blame to.
That's the problem here. CxOs work so abstractly that they won't go to jail. Some middle manager will do so and the CxO that was responsible for some nebulous act such as "cost cutting" rather than "we'll program this and do so poorly" will remain to further f--- the company into the ground.
It's probably more frustrating than that. I suspect if you really dig in and figure out what happened you'll find a whole bunch of people making bad, but somewhat understandable decisions, that somehow culminated in an airplane that was inevitably going to crash and kill people.
The people at the CxO level, even if they have the expertise, fundamentally have to end up trusting the reports of the people below them, the managers below them feel pressure to hit targets and downplay their worries, and people at
Re: (Score:2)
The one sensor choice was the customer's to make as I recall, very few (if any) of the top airlines ordered 737MAX airliners without specifying the "optional" safety upgrade.
The decision to buy planes minus the redundant safety device was the customers to make, goes no"s fault - in hindsight - was to make the item optional.
Re: Good (Score:1)
MCAS was marketed as a non safety system, so it did not need the two sensor, why bother?
If my memory serves me well, it was later changed to safety critical.
Re: (Score:1)
It's time to impose a corporate death penalty.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, corporations want to be people for rights like free speech, then they should also get the other side.
A good substitute for actual jail time would be all profits for the same duration as the jail time would be. So easy to lose 10-20 years profits for criminal negligence.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
No, not profits, because profits can be accounted away through debts etc. Instead, do it like is done with so many actual people: Percentage of their revenue.
Re: (Score:2)
So easy for a corporation to "lose money" year-after-year ans remain in business, see the Casino industry, for example.
This is just for the purposes of compensation (Score:2)
These decisions were made way, way up the ladder. By members of our ruling elite. In this country we do not spill the blood of kings.
Re: (Score:1)
I wouldn't be so sure about that. IANAL. However, I have had some law classes. One of the things I remember is a company cannot shield you from criminal liability. Otherwise just form a corporation to rob banks. Company goes to jail, not us. It's called piercing the corporate veil. They'd say - this was not really the company, it was you guys with the guns that robbed the bank. I've seen this work in cases of toxic waste, and others. I think they went after an architect/engineer for a building that collapse
So IOW (Score:2)
Their rocket will never fly.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless specific people are charged... (Score:3)
... ie the managers whose cost cutting caused this despite (unless they were complete idiots) knowing the potential effects , then nothing will change because a corporate fine makes little difference long term other than a small drop in shareholder payments and (a very small change) of lower C-Suite bonuses. Corporations arn't people, they're legal and financial entities and as such have no morals and feel no pain.
Re: Unless specific people are charged... (Score:5, Insightful)
What Romney meant by that is corporations are made up of people. In other words, without the people that run them, there are no corporations. Corporations likewise tend to behave like those who work for them.
And I don't know about you, but before I even agree to interview with a company for a job, first I look at what it is they do and what they're known for. For example, I've been recruited for jobs (high paying ones too) from multi level marketing companies, and each time, assuming they even get a response, it's either "no" (not even "no thanks") or "I really don't see myself working for a company like that". Then if I do agree to interview, I'm going to be probing them heavily about their company culture. If I don't like it, I'll decline any offer.
The company I work for right now has a strict "no douchebags" policy. And you know what? It's fucking awesome here.
In my experience, people who say stuff like you will just accept a job with whoever pays the most. Not saying that you personally do, but it's pretty typical that people with that attitude hate who they're working for, and also end up being douchebags to their coworkers, making everybody's life suck. And it is exactly that apathetic attitude that leads to companies doing shit like this. Not just companies either, government entities often have the same problems. Case in point, the events leading up to what happened with the 737 Max is remarkably similar to the events leading up to what happened to Challenger and Columbia.
Re: Unless specific people are charged... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
One striking way that Columbia/Challenger and the 737 Max are exactly identical is that there were reservations on the part of the engineers, but ultimately they caved to the leadership and signed off on it. The company I work for, if during the interviews you give them the impression that you would behave similarly, you'll fail the interviews, regardless of whether what you do has life or death implications. Disagreements with management are encouraged (though there is a difference between a healthy debate
Reservations by the engineers? (Score:2)
The reservations and concerns of the engineers are well known and thoroughly documented with the Challenger disaster, in measure owing to Roger Boisjoly's actions as a "whistleblower" and the Rogers Commission. There are either transcripts or quotes of the infamous phone call between NASA people and Thiokel engineers about "put on your management hat" and "when would you allow us to launch?"
With the Challenger, there is a sense that the customer, NASA, was pressuring Thiokel, the rocket booster maker ra
Re: (Score:2)
This was the point of "incorporation", the embodying of a company, to use a quick trick to bring it under laws which only apply to people. In exchange, the people are relatively protected since the government won't go through the company to get at them directly.
Re: (Score:2)
You've been recruited by Multi-Level Marketing companies for high-paying jobs?
Me, too! Pretty much everyone is.
Re: Unless specific people are charged... (Score:2)
Well they have real jobs and then they have pretend jobs. Once some turd at my university spammed other students, including me, trying to get people to join some shit called "wake up now" as if it was an actual job. The stupid asshole cc'ed everybody instead of bcc, so I did a reply all and sent everybody their income disclosure statement, along with blatantly referring to it as a scam. Pissed him off pretty good, so I rubbed it in his face how much money he was losing, and showed him their financial statem
Re:Justice? (Score:5, Insightful)
The families argued the government "lied and violated their rights through a secret process"
IOW they don't feel they're getting enough money to retire in the style they were imagining.
Since Boeing can't bring back the people who were killed, and for some reason the idea of shooting those who deliberately defrauded the government and falsified records is frowned upon, the only remaining option is to get the largest monetary penalty one can get.
Also, $2.5 billion/346 is $7,225,433.53 per person killed. Take out what is probably 30% for the attorneys and you're left with just over $5 million. Is that really a penalty for a company of this size who committed this crime?
Re: (Score:1)
(obviously as always they're on hand to mod me down)
Re: (Score:3)
Is that really a penalty for a company of this size who committed this crime?
They've already been fined $2.5 billion, do you think a bigger fine will make any difference?
What's really needed is a few members of upper management in the slammer.
Anybody here willing to bet that's going to happen? I'll take your money.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that really a penalty for a company of this size who committed this crime?
They've already been fined $2.5 billion, do you think a bigger fine will make any difference?
To put it in perspective: 2.5 billion, two crashes, 125~135 million list price per plane, makes less means that the penalty amounts to less than the cost of 10 planes per crash. Do you think it sounds fair if Ford's liability would be capped at $400K if there was evidence of a coverup that lead to your loved one burning to death when their F150 stopped responding to the steering wheel all of a sudden?
2.5 billion is still only a fraction of their annual gross profits. It'll be considered "the cost of doing
Re: (Score:2)
Boeing builds planes, their penalty is based on the number of crashes.
If exactly two Ford F150s crashed due to a customer's decision to not order an optional safety part, then yes, a $400K payout could be reasonable.
Many/most 737MAX airliner buyers ordered the dual-sensor system, and their passengers weren't at risk. Your example of 100s of thousands of defective pickup trucks simply doesn't compare to Boeing giving buyers the option to order a safety-compromised airframe.
Re: (Score:2)
How hard is it for Boeing to generate $2.5BN in profits, not revenue but profit? Boeing earned $76BN in overall profits in 2021, I'm curious about the profitability of the 737MAX plane was?
Re: Justice? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The penalty is $2.5Billion, and yes, that hurts a company of this size. The question you want to ask but failed to is "is $5 M (after legal expenses) adequate compensation for the loss of a loved one?
How much did the 9/11 families get when terrorists killed their family members?
Re: (Score:3)
My Universal Translator renders this bit of "right wing speak" as: "Corporations should never have to be face criminal responsibility for their acts, no matter how egregious."
Re:Justice? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's even worse: In a situation where over 300 people have lost their lives due to premeditated circumvention of regulations, deliberate withholding of critical material, all to avoid a different typerating which would hamper sales, Joce640k is blaming the victims(Yes, the relatives are victims too, because they've had loved ones ripped away through sociopathic greed) of being greedy, to defend the perpetrators, Boeing.
Re: (Score:3)
I haven't seen people accuse survivors of being greedy since...since yesterday with Alex Jones.
Re: (Score:1)
My Universal Translator renders this bit of "right wing speak" as: "Corporations should never have to be face criminal responsibility for their acts, no matter how egregious."
I have no problem putting the CEOs in prison, but we all know that's not going to happen.
It seems like these people are mostly after some extra compensation.
Re: (Score:3)
You cut corners to save money, increase profits, and you fucking kill members of my family in the process?
GOD FUCKING DAMN RIGHT I WANT MORE FUCKING COMPENSATION. I want enough of it to PERMANENTLY BANKRUPT that corrupt ass.
If you aren't thinking the same way, you're half of the goddamned problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Or, as Inigo Montoya so eloquently phrased it, "I want my father back, you son of a bitch!"
Re: (Score:2)
GOD FUCKING DAMN RIGHT I WANT MORE FUCKING COMPENSATION. I want enough of it to PERMANENTLY BANKRUPT that corrupt ass.
Idiot.
The people at the top who took those decisions will have golden parachutes waiting.
The only people you'll hurt are the workers.
Re: (Score:2)
IDIOT. Those same workers should have KNOWN what the fuck they were doing when that shit went down. ISO Standards means documentation existed where they could see what was happening during the production process.
Try working in a high-tech industry some time.
Sanctions (Score:2, Insightful)
Corporate criminal liability is incoherent (Score:1)
Whilst it is attractive to blame 'the corporation', it makes no actual sense. A corporation is merely a legal fiction, and the consequences for an organisation of being found guilt of an offence like this - substantial fines, what else can you do to a corporation? - merely punished the uninvolved owners for the behaviour of the executives. It makes great headlines and allows politicians to pretend they are doing something about these events, but it has no real value except to deprive innocent savers of some
Re: (Score:3)
what else can you do to a corporation? - merely punished the uninvolved owners for the behaviour of the executives
Death penalty. For a corporation, that's Chapter 7 liquidation.
Re: (Score:2)
With a profitable company that still isn't going to do much. Just nationalize all the stocks. Then sell it off in parts, to reprivatize it.
Final judgement hasn't even been passed (Score:3)
and we all know that the lawyers are already drafting appeal papers. It's like this judge made this decision specifically because he didn't want to be the person who decided the case knowing full well the concept of the victims here being victims of crime is so foreign in the system this is guaranteed to be appealed.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no conviction requirement to make a person a crime victim.
Many crimes are never prosecuted. Many perpetrators are never caught, or never convicted. The crimes in these cases are still crimes.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Legal definitions matter. They affect the kinds of actions the victims can take, such as suing for wrongful death.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that emotionally, the people who lost friends and family on these flights do need to move on. Nothing can change what happened. But judges, and the law, don't deal with emotions or closure, they deal with legal nuances and money judgments. For that purpose, this ruling matters.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no conviction requirement to make a person a crime victim.
Didn't say it was related to conviction. Rather it's effectively unheard of that victims are considered "crime victims" for corporate mistak... systematic errors caused by cutting corners. This kind of language is guaranteed to result in appeal.
corporate liability shield. (Score:2)
The real issue (problem?) here are the legal protections that government gives to corporations. In particular limited liability and the corporate veil. These government gifts really amount to public/private partnership, ie a soft form of fascism.
Executives at large corporations understand they are almost never held personally responsible for their actions. As such, they are hugely incentivized to do things that enrich the company and themselves at the expense of anyone and everyone else.
It is critical to
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. That liability shield protects my other assets should I happen to own 100 shares of Enron when they go belly up. Their executives shared no such immunity. Ken Lay had to die to escape prosecution. Others were not so lucky. And the Sarbanes-Oxley Act [wikipedia.org] plugged some of the existing loopholes.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, so as a partial owner of Enron, you felt zero need to take any responsibility to ensure the execs were acting correctly.
Without limited liability, people would need to be *much* more selective about what they invest in, and/or do it without taking any ownership, such as by offering loans. Either way, everyone would be more careful, ie responsible.
Re: (Score:2)
Without limited liability, people would need to be *much* more selective about what they invest in,
True. But then your pension wouldn't be worth squat. Don't forget who [wikipedia.org] the largest class of investors are. Ownership of the means of production would effectively be taken away from the common man.
Re: (Score:1)
yeah, clearly this is a "what if" scenario. We can see the outcomes of the present system, but it is difficult/impossible to imagine the outcome of a system without government granted privileges for corporations because the entire economy would be vastly different at all levels. In networking terms, it would have a different topology.
I always think of each jurisidiction as a kind of game with its own rules. Then there is a sort of meta game for all of human civilization. Generally civilization has adva
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The idea of the corporate veil, applies to the stock holders, so you can't hold owners of stock accountable for the actions of the compmay. The idea is to instead hold the CEOs accountable.
Re: (Score:1)
they are part and parcel. stockholders are owners. yet the government protects these owners from liability/responsibility. This creates bad incentives whereby the owners are happy to have the management do "bad" things so long as it brings more profit to the owners. this should be easy to see, once pointed out.
In a true free enterprise system, the government would offer no special privileges to owners. This changes the incentives massively.
Aviationists should run aircraft companies (Score:2)
Aviation is no ordinary product or service. It takes several years to make a decent technician (I've trained many in the USAF) and much longer ENTHUSIASTIC IMMERSION to effectively manage other highly skilled people building these immensely complex systems of systems where one unwisely chosen lock nut can fail destroying the aircraft (a generator lock nut on F-16s cost at least two aircraft because it was a plastic insert style instead of steel-I don't use non-metallic locking nuts on anything but furniture
actually, that's how they all began (Score:2)
When corporations are initially formed, some founder or founders have an idea for a product or service, then they usually implement enough of it to attract investors, and then things are off-and-running. For as long as the founders are running the place, the vision is usually solid. At some point, however, the founders get booted out by the investors, or they die, or they get bored and move on, and the company is left in the hands of the board (which represents the investors, most of whom know nothing about
Re: (Score:2)
Except the former Boeing CEO, who was fired for the MAX debacle, is an actual aerospace engineer who started at Boeing as an intern in the 1980s.
Prison time! Stop the money grab. (Score:3)
Only when there is prison time will people think twice. Fines don't change the behavior of pressured employees.
Wrong^4 (Score:2)
OK, maybe you are not USian, but if you are, which part of the "Prosecution represents the People" is not understood?
What part of "It's not supposed to be a system of revenge" is not correct?