I wasn't suggesting that either VW's, GM's, or Boeing's CEOs actually go to prison for "killing" anyone but rather for "knowingly allowing such issues to directly kill". And as the GM example stands to show, it's not particularly hard to get away with this in the US if you are the CEO of a powerful company.
Given that Boeing and GM are/were some of the most powerful in the US stands to reason that most companies will fall under the "less powerful" characterization. But I think my point was clear already: the more powerful the company, the more clout they have when it comes to keeping their CEOs out of prison. whether or not this is doable for smaller players is irrelevant when talking about a heavyweight like Boeing.
I can't help but notice that all these are examples of CEO's going to prison for making rich people less rich. None a single one for making poor people dead.
Then I'm sure you also noticed none of this makes my point* less valid. Despite the wave of downvotes (which are probably aimed at me explicitly mentioning the US) I can't see any rebuttal of something I actually said:
*Given the precedents (like the GM scandal), CEOs of big/powerful companies (Boeing) in the US (where Boeing "lives") will pretty much get away with anything, including knowingly allowing hundreds to die (which Boeing/CEO did).
Later edit:
> simply trying to lockup CEOs I don't think is the right way to go.
Indeed, it's just a good first step. The very same companies and CEOs will always fight any legal changes that would further a culture of safety first because that usually hurts the bottom line.
I mean that is a pretty strong statement. It's not like it was really possible to criminally charge Tony Hayward with being at fault for a faulty blow out preventer design, even though a number of people died. In some ways we were probably less safe with him fired, given that one of his objectives was to develop a much stronger engineering centric culture at BP.
In Brazil Vale and a number of its executives (along with the European dam inspector) are expected to be indicted. It will like be about falsifying documents related to dam safety.
Proving that the CEO is the one that should go to jail, while satisfying, is actually quite difficult. While I would probably agree with one piece of your sentiment, senior executives are often able to escape prosecution for things that are clearly illegal (looking at you HSBC), simply trying to lockup CEOs I don't think is the right way to go.