German court sends Volkswagen execs to prison over Dieselgate scandal
Technology
133
Beiträge
93
Kommentatoren
1.2k
Aufrufe
-
I mean, apart from the apparent guilt, do you think any country would simply hand over its prominent nationals? If there were a case against an US CEO in Germany, hell would freeze over before extradition.
The point is that the US has gathered enough evidence to get indictments against them. Germany has access to that same evidence and has very similar laws that were violated -- but has done basically nothing.
-
What’s Volkswagen’s org structure like? I wouldn’t normally expect a department head to be middle management.
Think of them more like division heads. Not quite a regular middle manager, but not C-suite.
-
Before anyone becomes too happy: the post’s title is inaccurate, the two people sent to jail are only middle managers:
deleted my happy post bc of this
-
You can be both. Schmidt was general manager of VW's U.S. Environment and Engineering Office.
As much as I like to see consequences, I would rather have just seen a very large fine put toward environmental purposes than prison time. Save prison for people who pose a direct danger to the public.
But their scam did pose a direct health danger to society. If there are never consequences for executives, they won't care if the company loses some money (or go bankrupt), they land another job elsewhere and live on.
-
The point is that the US has gathered enough evidence to get indictments against them. Germany has access to that same evidence and has very similar laws that were violated -- but has done basically nothing.
I understand the point, and for the record I also believe those responsible should be held accountable personally. The difficult thing is simply the international character of the crimes committed. If these things are illegal in Germany, perhaps they should be tried under German law and courts.
But I also recognise that’s probably not going to happen due to the people accused having too much (political/soft) power. It’s a real dilemma when we’re talking about white collar crime.
Say for example, I do something right now in my home country, which is illegal for me to do in, say Madagascar, but is legal where I live. The thing I’m doing, I’m doing from my office in my home country. The effect is in Madagascar - is it then reasonable for Madagascar to ask my home country for extradition?
It’s absolutely not the same as what’s happened, but I’m taking it to an extreme to make a point. International laws are really difficult, especially when extradition of nationals is at play… not to invalidate the fact that these people did something very wrong by the way!
-
no state should have the power to execute people
I would present a counterargument to that, as all states in the world ultimately have this power, only the circumstances differ. I mean, grab a gun and try to shoot at armed police anywhere in the world. You will be killed, and nobody can sue the state or the police who shot you for unjustly executing you. Killing you is always fair to protect other people from being killed.
From there, we are arguing whether states should be able to kill in cold blood, which is a different conversation, and my opinion is that we should keep making penalties for "financial crimes", which usually kill more people than any mass shooter or serial killer could, harsher and harsher until there is a clearly visible deterrent effect.
The case of the lady in Vietnam is not even a direct "cold blood" case by the way, as the state agreed to spare her if she puts at least most of the money back, which means that lives lost because of the absence of that money might be spared. In my view, this is analogous to shooting at an active shooter, and an okay thing to do. Lives are being saved by doing this.
I was making an argument about should, not does, and executing people is rather different than shooting someone in defense of yourself/others.
I agree that financial crimes should have harsh penalties, just not death. The problem is that we don't generally apply penalties to this type of crime at all; fining a company $500mil after they made $40bil or whatever by circumventing laws/regulations is not a penalty, it's the cost of doing business.
-
This post did not contain any content.
This sounds like actual impactful consequences and accountability for the rich exploitative asshole executives actually responsible? Did I forget to wake up in the morning?
-
Of course not. But on the other hand I am not stupid enough to adhere blindly to an ideology.
ah yes, the silly ideology of breathing.
So how we can call what is behind the "ban this and that" mentality which is without any real study about the consequences and without any suggestion for alternatives ? Pre-intentional stupidity ?
Look, I am fully aware that what VW (and everyone else) did was a crime and I agree that they must pay. On the oher hand I also fully understand that you cannot change the reality only because you write a law to change it, in this case all the Euro-x normatives about emission levels.
Do you think that it is a silly idelogy to ask that also the people that make silly decision that they will not suffer are asked to pay for the consequences ? Fine, think this way.
Do we really lost the concept that one can agree with something but also see what the problems of that thing are ?
Yes, VW could have switched to hydrid or EV but not in the timeframe they are given.
Not to consider that switching the entire production to hybrid and EV without the necessary infrastructure to use them in the real world is useless, you simply build cars that nobody will buy. -
This post did not contain any content.
Let’s go Germany!! Shouldn’t be the exception to the rule
-
So how we can call what is behind the "ban this and that" mentality which is without any real study about the consequences and without any suggestion for alternatives ? Pre-intentional stupidity ?
Look, I am fully aware that what VW (and everyone else) did was a crime and I agree that they must pay. On the oher hand I also fully understand that you cannot change the reality only because you write a law to change it, in this case all the Euro-x normatives about emission levels.
Do you think that it is a silly idelogy to ask that also the people that make silly decision that they will not suffer are asked to pay for the consequences ? Fine, think this way.
Do we really lost the concept that one can agree with something but also see what the problems of that thing are ?
Yes, VW could have switched to hydrid or EV but not in the timeframe they are given.
Not to consider that switching the entire production to hybrid and EV without the necessary infrastructure to use them in the real world is useless, you simply build cars that nobody will buy.Tokyo banned diesel motors in the late 90s. As far as I know that didn't kill Toyota.
At the same time European car makers started to lobby for particle filters that were supposed to solve everything. The politics who where naive enough to believe them do share responsibility, but not as much as the european auto industry that created this whole situation.
Also, you implies that laws are made by politicians without any intervention of the industries whatsoever. I think you know that it is not how it works.
-
-
-
-
Brazil's supreme court rules that platforms like Facebook and X can be held liable for user posts, requiring them to remove content even without a court order
Technology
1
-
UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is Cracking Down on Google; Roadmap Include Requiring Choice Screen for Search Providers, Fair Ranking, Publisher Transparency, and Data Portability.
Technology
1
-
-
-
