The responsibility doesn't come from the money, it comes from being the Chief Executive, with nearly unlimited operational authority. The money would be compensation for liability that would be inherent to their position.

Criminal liability can not be transferred. The idea would be rejected by every sane court as it is a perversion of justice and sets unimaginably bad precedent.

Criminal liability cannot be transferred, but additional liability based on having the authority to oversee and direct a crime where one should have been aware is something that already exists: see RICO. No one is saying that the employees who committed a crime should be absolved, people are saying the chief executive should be additionally liable as they are responsible and, if they didn't know, should have known by this point.

So you are saying that in a case like Boeing's the CEO was completely unaware of the shitshow at their company and couldn't have taken appropriate actions?

A dysfunctional company with bad management is not a crime. Putting a CEO in jail because he is bad, not because any crime had been committed, is an even worse idea.

The specific case here about criminally negligent software design errors almost certainly never came up to the CEO. If there is evidence otherwise and the CEO was aware of the problem and decided that the risks were acceptable then he obviously should go to jail. This was not the case here as far as I am aware.

Knowing of the issue is the important thing here. If you want another case you can look at the Diesel Gate Scandal at VW, it is German law, but the single most important question is always "who knew", because if the person did not know and had no reason to want to know he HAS to be innocent, regardless whether it is the CEO or anyone else.

> The specific case here about criminally negligent software design errors almost certainly never came up to the CEO.

He or she is responsible for the culture and governing within the company. So either way they are involved either by knowing and ignoring or by setting the precedent for this to go ahead without their knowledge. The punishment for those might differ but it's not a free pass.

> The specific case here about criminally negligent software design errors almost certainly never came up to the CEO.

It’s the CEO’s job to make sure these things “come up” to him. If he didn’t know about an engineering problem that got people killed then he is negligent and still should go to prison.

I don’t get all this simping for CEOs. CEOs don’t need us to defend them on HN. Trust me, they are doing fine without passioned arguments in support of them.

What is the problem with CEOs starting internal investigations to see if there are any (safety/criminal) issues?

Why does the cost of investigation have to be paid by society?

> Parents do not take on the crimes of their children. They are criminally liable for not overseeing their children's action and/or for not preventing their actions, which is something totally different.

It is not completely different. The CEOs should be liable for not properly overseeing their company and for not preventing the illegal actions of the company they're in charge of.

Their company is filled with humans, though. A human can do something illegal.

For example: if someone breaks into a bank, do you always fire the CEO?

Then: if an employee of the bank breaks into a bank, now do you always fire the CEO?