• mycodesucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Exactly. If you can’t point to the EXACT person that’s responsible for the committing of a crime, you can’t do anything about the crime and have to let it go on without interruption. There’s literally no other choice. /s

    • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Yes, that’s how prosecutions work.

      When someone is murdered, they don’t put three people on trial and say “One of these must be the killer, but we can’t figure out who. So we’ll have to send them all to prison”.

      But in this case, they do have another choice: prosecute the corporation instead of individuals.

      • mycodesucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        They should demand an immediate halt to the activity, if they don’t, force the organization shuttered immediately. Stop the crime. You don’t wait to figure out culpability to stop the crime in process. The justice department is law ENFORCEMENT, not assigning culpability. That’s the judicial branch’s job. It’s not difficult.

        • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          They have already demanded a halt.

          If they don’t, they can stop the activity but it will require getting a judge to issue a restraining order or an injunction.

          The DoJ generally can’t stop someone unilaterally. Even when they arrest someone, that person is immediately brought before a judge (habeas corpus) who decides whether they can go free before trial.