Richard Dawkins makes a stand!

[fdesilva]

I'm hardly well educated in legal matters, but I believe in that situation they would both be responsible for turning in the culprit, as they both have knowledge of the crime.

That is true if both were witnesses to the crime. However as far as the CEO is concerned he is not a witness to the Crime. The person X reporting it to the CEO is the one with the evidence.

[i_am_i]

With regards to
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... anity.html

If a CEO of a company is told by a person X that one of the companies staff members  stole a $1000 from him.  
Is the CEO responsible to reporting it to the police or should person X report it to the police?

I think so. Why not? Why wouldn't the CEO report it to the police? Unless the CEO knew about it all along and wanted to cover it up for some reason.  

And of course the pope isn't a CEO and the raping of children is not the same as stealing $1000.

[fdesilva]

With regards to
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... anity.html

If a CEO of a company is told by a person X that one of the companies staff members  stole a $1000 from him.  
Is the CEO responsible to reporting it to the police or should person X report it to the police?

I think so. Why not? Why wouldn't the CEO report it to the police? Unless the CEO knew about it all along and wanted to cover it up for some reason.  

And of course the pope isn't a CEO and the raping of children is not the same as stealing $1000.

Have a read of

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8579276.stm

So now I guess Richard Dawkins is going to want that the Chinese government arrest the CEO of Rio Tinto

[Ellainix]

I want to see the Pope get arrested SO BAD!

I would even settle for just a public announcement that Britain will arrest the Pope the first chance they get.

[AlP]

Not an expert but I think this is how it works...

I think (legally) the CEO is responsible to the company's shareholders. So it would be the CEO's responsibility to protect the shareholder's interests and attempt to recover the loss of shareholder equity (the $1000). I assume "him" means "the company", otherwise the role of CEO is irrelevant.

Person X (legally) has no responsibility unless he or she has in some way agreed to a role that gives them that responsibility, such as being an insider.

[Dretlin]

I want to see the Pope get arrested SO BAD!

I would even settle for just a public announcement that Britain will arrest the Pope the first chance they get.

I would be blown away equally by either of those.

[Whitney]

I'm hardly well educated in legal matters, but I believe in that situation they would both be responsible for turning in the culprit, as they both have knowledge of the crime.

That is true if both were witnesses to the crime. However as far as the CEO is concerned he is not a witness to the Crime. The person X reporting it to the CEO is the one with the evidence.

Regardless of the legal concerns, it is highly unethical to be informed of a child abuse case then do nothing to report it or stop it from happening.

[Dretlin]

I'm hardly well educated in legal matters, but I believe in that situation they would both be responsible for turning in the culprit, as they both have knowledge of the crime.

That is true if both were witnesses to the crime. However as far as the CEO is concerned he is not a witness to the Crime. The person X reporting it to the CEO is the one with the evidence.

Regardless of the legal concerns, it is highly unethical to be informed of a child abuse case then do nothing to report it or stop it from happening.

I hope that is the primary concern of anyone, regardless of the persons position in whatever organization they happen to belong to.

[Whitney]

oh and, legally, if you are informed of a crime yet fail to report to the authorities you are acting illegally under most modern law systems.  Not to mention that a crimes against humanity charge is not an everyday legal case and applies to someone who has caused mass harm to humanity due to criminal neglect or purposeful intent.  The problem with that sort of charge is that I could just as easily argue that George HW Bush should be arrested the next time he visits the UK for crimes against humanity since it can be argued that he launched a religious crusade on the middle east because god told him to (yes i know it is more complicated than that, just making a point at how broad the charge can be).

[Evolved]

The problem with that sort of charge is that I could just as easily argue that George HW Bush should be arrested the next time he visits the UK for crimes against humanity since it can be argued that he launched a religious crusade on the middle east because god told him to (yes i know it is more complicated than that, just making a point at how broad the charge can be).

Hell yeah!  Throw that bastard in there, too!

[Evolved]

With regards to
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... anity.html

If a CEO of a company is told by a person X that one of the companies staff members  stole a $1000 from him.  
Is the CEO responsible to reporting it to the police or should person X report it to the police?

I think so. Why not? Why wouldn't the CEO report it to the police? Unless the CEO knew about it all along and wanted to cover it up for some reason.  

And of course the pope isn't a CEO and the raping of children is not the same as stealing $1000.

Have a read of

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8579276.stm

So now I guess Richard Dawkins is going to want that the Chinese government arrest the CEO of Rio Tinto

So fdesilva, you're comparing child rape to financial crimes?

Richard Dawkins considers atheists to be better moral people than believers since they need neither a god nor a higher law to behave themselves.  I think you may have supported his argument.  

[Dretlin]

oh and, legally, if you are informed of a crime yet fail to report to the authorities you are acting illegally under most modern law systems.  Not to mention that a crimes against humanity charge is not an everyday legal case and applies to someone who has caused mass harm to humanity due to criminal neglect or purposeful intent.  The problem with that sort of charge is that I could just as easily argue that George HW Bush should be arrested the next time he visits the UK for crimes against humanity since it can be argued that he launched a religious crusade on the middle east because god told him to (yes i know it is more complicated than that, just making a point at how broad the charge can be).

Unlike George Bush (who is guilty of catastrophically poor word choice), the Pope has evidence implicating him in a specific crime. I view the popes status of head of a religion as irrelevant, it does not lessen the crime.

(And yes I am aware we could debate, and probably should, the horrible failure that is George Bush)

[fdesilva]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8588294.stm

"The papal spokesman also noted that police at the time investigated the allegations, but did not bring charges. "

[karadan]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8588294.stm

"The papal spokesman also noted that police at the time investigated the allegations, but did not bring charges. "

You didn't answer the question posed to you by Evolved.

Can you answer that question please?

[Sophus]

Here's a nutbar's rant about how Richard Dawkins should be arrested for "covering up atheist crimes": http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rory-fitzgerald/richard-dawkins-should-be_b_541387.html

And here's PZ Meyer's splendid response: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/04/huffpo_cements_its_reputation.php

aaaaannd this one: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/04/17/huffpo-arrest-richard-dawkins/