JoeEpcotRocks said:As an accountant I am sad for Andersen.
I am also sad for the many who lost their jobs.
But in reality, Andersen in many ways brought it upon themselves by losing the "independence" that auditors are supposed to have.
In 1980, I was employed as a financial accountant for a utility company. Andersen was the "independent" auditors for our ceritified financials (including annual reports and SEC reports as a publicly traded company). Well, many of us in the accounting depts. were amazed at how many former Andersen employees were in high levels of our company (CFO, Vice President of the entire co., Controller and a few acctg. supervisors). Not saying any of these people were dishonest but it gave the appearance of a "good old boy (and gal) network" instead of the independence which was supposed to very important, both in actuality and appearence.
Over time Andersen and other acctg. firms became more and more involved in consulting for the very companies they audited. Although there was supposed to be a "wall" and intentions were good, human nature and big money can certainly erode walls or good intentions.
Now, at least in part to the Andersen fiasco, rules on being hired by a client and related disclosures I very strict.
I don't blame the courts in the case, the market place was tougher than any court would be. Yes, the public was upset at Anderson, but as an accountant and an investor, I was upset too. Again, I feel for those innocents who lost their jobs - but the fact is their company let them down - not the public or the courts.
Maybe thousands of innocent, hard-working people had their lives turned upside down because a few people did something wrong?bicker said:And ask yourself, "Why the heck did thousands of innocent, hard-working people have to have their lives turned upside down, just because the American public wanted to hurt someone, anyone, regardless of culpability?"
Nope. It was the general public's irrational insistance on exacting a pound of flesh whenever circumstances can be twisted to that end, and how such mob mentality rewards institutions that help deliver that grizzly prize. Even if it later turns out that there is evidence to suggest that, as you propose, a "few people" actually did do something wrong (which given the current circumstances, it would be irresponsible to assume), it would never have warranted the hatchet-job that harmed so many honest, hard-working people.Tigger_Magic said:Maybe thousands of innocent, hard-working people had their lives turned upside down because a few people did something wrong?
Maybe I missed the point in the SC ruling that overturned the conviction because there was no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of AA. The reality is that a jury listened to the evidence and found them guilty of commiting a crime. Now, the SC overturns the conviction based solely on the judge's instructions, not based on a finding that the evidence in the case did not support a finding of guilt.bicker said:Nope. It was the general public's irrational insistance on exacting a pound of flesh whenever circumstances can be twisted to that end, and how such mob mentality rewards institutions that help deliver that grizzly prize. Even if it later turns out that there is evidence to suggest that, as you propose, a "few people" actually did do something wrong (which given the current circumstances, it would be irresponsible to assume), it would never have warranted the hatchet-job that harmed so many honest, hard-working people.
I find it odd that some would blame the "general public" for the demise of AA when it was AA that commited the crimes in the first place. This is the sort of thinking that would excuse any criminal behavior because of the influence of "society in general."Nope, Tigger. All of us in the general public have to take responsibility for allowing the institutions of society to enable satisfaction of the baser instincts of some. While it might be personally soothing to say, "Well I didn't do it," or "They made me do it," it doesn't absolve us of the blame for crafting a society like this, one that eats good people up, nor absolve us of the responsibility of working to change things for the better, every day.
No. According to the Supreme Court, the jury found them guilty of committing actions that were not crimes.Tigger_Magic said:The reality is that a jury listened to the evidence and found them guilty of commiting a crime.
Not at all. The general public definitely has that power.Tigger_Magic said:I think you give the "general public" way too much power to be able to bend and twist the justice system to its will.
You're doing it yourself: First and formost, what we know now is that AA committed actions that are not crimes. We have no idea if anyone at AA committed crimes or not. Second, didn't you allege earlier that "a few people" committed crimes -- now you're saying the whole company did. See how you've demonized thousands of people for the actions of a few, actions which, again, have been found not to be crimes.Tigger_Magic said:I find it odd that some would blame the "general public" for the demise of AA when it was AA that commited the crimes in the first place.
Not in the slightest. Criminal behavior should be punished appropriately. That doesn't mean lynch mobs are justified, or pogroms against whole groups of people because a few of them may have done something wrong.Tigger_Magic said:This is the sort of thinking that would excuse any criminal behavior because of the influence of "society in general."
brerrabbit said:So many times in life crimes go unpunished because of procedural errors during a trial. It's the price we pay for living in America under our form of Democracy. It's a price I am willing to pay at times for the freedoms we are guarenteed. Very rarely even though errors are made in the court procedings the verdict comes out right. The judge in the Anderson case may have made mistakes in giving the jury instructions but beleive me, Anderson was guilty of a lot of things that they were never tried for. I feel for all the people that lost their jobs in the aftermath. I know their pain because as an ex Enron employee I personally lost over $200,000. But as an ex Enron employee I can tell you that Anderson had gone way over the line as an independent auditor. They were granting favorable decisions to Enrons actions on the audit side in order to garner consulting contracts on the other side. Anderson was well paid for their part in the Enron fiasco. Yes Anderson employees were hurt but before the ruling was overturned justice had gotten it right and found the right people guilty. I only hope as the trials of Lay, and Skilling approach that the justice system gets that right to.
So better that a corporation that was found guilty of committing crimes get off scot free, so that some can feel a sense of vindication? One side yells mom mentality while the other yells about perverted justice.Bob Slydell said:So, in other words, you lost a lot of money, so who cares if thousands of other innocent people (at AA) lost jobs -- you want justice and someone's gonna pay?
Nope, no mob mentality there.
Tigger_Magic said:So better that a corporation that was found guilty of committing crimes get off scot free, so that some can feel a sense of vindication? One side yells mom mentality while the other yells about perverted justice.
As has been pointed out, the trial was not the primary or sole precipitator of AA's demise. The company chose a path that led to its demise by self-inflicting a fatal wound on its integrity as an "independent" accounting/auditing company. As with a company I worked for that wound up bankrupt and defunct, the driving factor became the bottom line/profit margin. Just like AA, our company started shooting corporate integrity in the foot and then, as profits and stock price continued to climb, the gun was aimed higher and higher, continuing to shoot, until the wounds became fatal.Bob Slydell said:What corporation was going to get off scot free? Enron execs are being prosecuted (albeit slowly) and the lead partner on the engagement, Duncan, pled guilty to charges. Why the need to bring down the rest of the firm with him? The changes that have taken place since all this went down could have been accomplished without crushing an entire firm and putting tens of thousands of people out of work.
No: Better that those who did something wrong get punished, and the others are not punished.So better that a corporation that was found guilty of committing crimes get off scot free, so that some can feel a sense of vindication?So, in other words, you lost a lot of money, so who cares if thousands of other innocent people (at AA) lost jobs -- you want justice and someone's gonna pay?
Nope, no mob mentality there.
Mom has nothing to do with it and neither does perverted justice. Justice demands that only those who did something wrong get punished.One side yells mom mentality while the other yells about perverted justice.
And sometimes an irrational system causes bad things to happen to good people -- an irrational system that can be fixed by making those that distort or sensationalize accountable for the damage they cause.Sometimes bad things happen to good people.