> now you're getting convicted instead of having an opportunity to correct the problem
You have completely ignored the fact that this is literally the opposite of what has (likely) happened in this case, and is provably almost the norm in countless other cases like this. There was an opportunity to make things right by the leadership. They did not choose to do so. At every step along the way.
Even assuming that these were honest mistakes (I don't believe so), the actions taken by leadership in most of these situations tend to wring the complainant out of the system. If there's a "free market" way to resolve these problems, this certainly ain't it, which calls for regulations. If those regulations aren't strong enough to coerce the intended result (if you find out one of your employees acted in this manner, immediately contact law enforcement and let them figure it out, otherwise you're in trouble as well), then you are actively encouraging an extrajudicial mechanism for resolving these matters. Specifically, you're encouraging civil remedies vs. criminal ones.
Failure to report isn't the problem here. It's that the failure to report has no consequences on people with adequate power, who get to create their own kangaroo court of dispute and certainly resolve cases to their own benefit.
> You have completely ignored the fact that this is literally the opposite of what has (likely) happened in this case
What happens in a particular case is not what motivates behavior in the aggregate. People have incomplete information and use heuristics. If you set up a system that causes people to loath interacting with the government, the prevailing heuristics come to be about what you would expect.
> There was an opportunity to make things right by the leadership. They did not choose to do so. At every step along the way.
And that's what the system we have encourages. The prevailing rules and political climate empirically lead to this result.
> If those regulations aren't strong enough to coerce the intended result (if you find out one of your employees acted in this manner, immediately contact law enforcement and let them figure it out, otherwise you're in trouble as well), then you are actively encouraging an extrajudicial mechanism for resolving these matters.
Consider the alternatives you've laid out here.
Their first option is to go to law enforcement right away, but that immediately leads to a scandal, bad PR, legal expenses, etc. Unless you can significantly mitigate these deterrents, people will inherently have a disinclination to do this, whether it's "required" or not.
Their second option is to try to arbitrate the situation internally. This has an intrinsic advantage because you get an attempt to handle things by people who know the parties and their circumstances, and if it turns out to be a false accusation or some other shenanigans you don't get a public scandal. And if that doesn't work the first option is still available afterwards. So people are going to want to start here.
Now suppose you say that they're not allowed to start there. People are still going to want to and a lot of times they're still going to do it anyway. But once they have, they're now under much more pressure to make sure it goes away even if it turns out not to be a false accusation, because the initially-innocent people who were just trying to avoid a scandal are now regarded as co-conspirators who could be charged if they don't engage in an effective coverup. That is a helluva perverse incentive to create.
> Specifically, you're encouraging civil remedies vs. criminal ones.
Which is a trade off but not always the worst one.
> It's that the failure to report has no consequences on people with adequate power, who get to create their own kangaroo court of dispute and certainly resolve cases to their own benefit.
"People with power will use their power to their own advantage" is nearly a tautology. The question is, how do you create a system that produces reasonable outcomes in that context?
A system that causes intuitive human responses to put people into a situation that exercise of power is necessary to extricate them from it is going to both encourage that result and disadvantage people without influence, which is bad. Ideally you want a system that doesn't harm any innocent people because it's efficient and reasonable, so people don't expect to be unjustly damaged by interacting with it.
You have completely ignored the fact that this is literally the opposite of what has (likely) happened in this case, and is provably almost the norm in countless other cases like this. There was an opportunity to make things right by the leadership. They did not choose to do so. At every step along the way.
Even assuming that these were honest mistakes (I don't believe so), the actions taken by leadership in most of these situations tend to wring the complainant out of the system. If there's a "free market" way to resolve these problems, this certainly ain't it, which calls for regulations. If those regulations aren't strong enough to coerce the intended result (if you find out one of your employees acted in this manner, immediately contact law enforcement and let them figure it out, otherwise you're in trouble as well), then you are actively encouraging an extrajudicial mechanism for resolving these matters. Specifically, you're encouraging civil remedies vs. criminal ones.
Failure to report isn't the problem here. It's that the failure to report has no consequences on people with adequate power, who get to create their own kangaroo court of dispute and certainly resolve cases to their own benefit.