• sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    If an employer-employee cooperate to commit a crime, both are responsible

    Sure, if they’re both aware of and complicit in committing the crime. But in most cases, the employee is unaware of the crime, or commits it under duress. If the employer orders the employee to commit the crime as part of their job, the employer should take the larger (if not total) share of the consequences due to the power dynamic.

    A huge part of prosecuting a crime is establishing motive, and duress should move most, if not all, of the guilt onto the employer.

    • J Lou@mastodon.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      2/2

      If a worker voluntarily commits a crime for their employer, that is still inalienably their decision. Yes, the employer told them to do it, and that gave them a reason to do it, but having a reason doesn’t absolve them of guilt or responsibility for their actions

      @technology

    • J Lou@mastodon.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      1/2

      A group of people is de facto responsible for a result if it is a purposeful result of their intentional joint actions. The pure application of the norm that legal and de facto responsibility match is to deliberate actions. The workers joint actions that use up inputs to produce outputs are planned and deliberate. They meet the criteria for being premeditated. The workers are not under duress in normal work, and consent to the employer-employee contract.

      @technology