E Coli outbreak in Germany - crime and punishment

[Me-Ki-Gal]

Exactly..

But according to Asguard, it's a family farm and the farmer forgot to wash his hands in the morning..

I doubt that . It was probably the fertilizer used . The U.S . took months the last time this happened in the states . It was tracked down to a root source in the end . That is what liberal Media lead us to believe anyway . People would not eat Lettuce ( I think that was the crop , or strawberries, Might have been both but at different times ) for quite a while in market share terms . Business loss of income time . Shit like that takes companies out of the game .

 

[Pete]

It is easy to say that.. until you are the victim of a doctor's negligence or because they just couldn't be stuffed looking at the images of the last scan which showed something was wrong or would go wrong in a very short space of time.

While I, for one, gained a lot of satisfaction from the "honest investigation", I gained more from the knowledge that the doctor would never be able to put another patient through the same horror that I went through. I had a doctor who not only could not be bothered looking at the scan images (something she voiced in front of me on the phone to the sonographer who called her to tell her she should possibly check the clearance) because she was going to be late for a flight, she also failed to show up when things went drastically wrong and I and my yet to be born child came dangerously close to death - something that would never have happened if she'd looked at the scan images.. Even when she was paged and called, she was apparently busy. My goal in the investigation was so that she never ever had the opportunity to 'not be bothered' again and put another woman's or child's life at risk. And I was not the only patient who suffered from her 'can't be bothered' attitude or her forgetting to do things. I was just one of the lucky ones.

Some things are common practice. Say washing your hands after using the bathroom, especially more so when working in the food industry as one example. If someone's negligence leads to numerous deaths and thousands ill, many of whom with permanent damage, then I'm sorry, but the mere hope that he or she has learned their lesson isn't enough. What it should lead to is prosecution for negligence and manslaughter and stronger regulations put into place to try to prevent it from happening again.

What it comes down to is this. If your actions lead to the deaths of others, then you should be held responsible for it. If you directly cause people's death, then yes, you should be held responsible.

I'm sorry for what happened Bells. This is really scary stuff for me, because I'll be there in the nearish future.

But here's the thing - if you find one doctor who doesn't always do things properly, then you can be sure there are others who haven't been found, and there is probably some underlying reason.

If you find one food handler who doesn't wash their hands, then you can be sure there are others who haven't been found.


Now, I certainly agree that finding and removing the intractable offenders who deliberately, repeatedly and knowingly engage in dangerous behavior (such as Jayant Patel, and perhaps the doctor you describe) need to be removed and possibly charged with criminal negligence. But, such people should be and usually are identified by their risky behaviour before serious incidents happen. And if they aren't... the system needs adjusting to make sure they are in the future (eg Jayant Patel).

Fortunately, people like that are fairly rare. Most serious incidents happen not because of criminal negligence, but because of human errors, ignorance, and the systematic encouragement of bad habits. Preventing those incidents is (I hope) more satisfying than punishing perps after the fact.


It certainly would be satisfying to imprison some nasty worker who never washes their hands because they just don't care about food safety. But, such a person is not likely to be the cause of this outbreak. And if an investigation goes in looking for such a person, it is likely to miss the real story of simple errors and procedural flaws, which means missing the opportunity to fix it.

 

[Read-Only]

I'm sorry for what happened Bells. This is really scary stuff for me, because I'll be there in the nearish future.

But here's the thing - if you find one doctor who doesn't always do things properly, then you can be sure there are others who haven't been found, and there is probably some underlying reason.

If you find one food handler who doesn't wash their hands, then you can be sure there are others who haven't been found.


Now, I certainly agree that finding and removing the intractable offenders who deliberately, repeatedly and knowingly engage in dangerous behavior (such as Jayant Patel, and perhaps the doctor you describe) need to be removed and possibly charged with criminal negligence. But, such people should be and usually are identified by their risky behaviour before serious incidents happen. And if they aren't... the system needs adjusting to make sure they are in the future (eg Jayant Patel).

Fortunately, people like that are fairly rare. Most serious incidents happen not because of criminal negligence, but because of human errors, ignorance, and the systematic encouragement of bad habits. Preventing those incidents is (I hope) more satisfying than punishing perps after the fact.


It certainly would be satisfying to imprison some nasty worker who never washes their hands because they just don't care about food safety. But, such a person is not likely to be the cause of this outbreak. And if an investigation goes in looking for such a person, it is likely to miss the real story of simple errors and procedural flaws, which means missing the opportunity to fix it.

I'll simply say this, Pete, you are being FAR to idealistic. And, unfortunately, the real world does not revolve around purely idealistic thinking. So you have two choices, and only two - either move into the world of realism or continue to live in your fantasy world. In the latter you have no opportunity to do yourself or anyone else any good. So I hope you chose the former.

 

[Bells]

I'm sorry for what happened Bells. This is really scary stuff for me, because I'll be there in the nearish future.

If you have done nothing wrong, then you have done nothing wrong.

What we are talking about here is pure negligence or negligent acts that result in harm to the general public.

But here's the thing - if you find one doctor who doesn't always do things properly, then you can be sure there are others who haven't been found, and there is probably some underlying reason.

If you find one food handler who doesn't wash their hands, then you can be sure there are others who haven't been found.

I am not saying that is not the case. Businesses get shut down and owners fined for failing to follow proper safety guidelines. Health departments will send out health inspectors to restaurants and anywhere that sells food, where they will take samples and test it, they also take swab tests of surfaces to make sure that it is sanitary and safe. That is a standard practice in most of Australia. And if they find things that don't belong there, then as a business owner, you could very well find yourself shut down.

If people die, then yes, you should face some form of legal sanction. If your actions directly cause the death or injury of others (non-accidental of course) and you were found to be negligent, then yes, that should face legal sanction in my opinion.

Now, I certainly agree that finding and removing the intractable offenders who deliberately, repeatedly and knowingly engage in dangerous behavior (such as Jayant Patel, and perhaps the doctor you describe) need to be removed and possibly charged with criminal negligence. But, such people should be and usually are identified by their risky behaviour before serious incidents happen. And if they aren't... the system needs adjusting to make sure they are in the future (eg Jayant Patel).

Patel is not the only doctor who is a hack. I know of at least one other who refuses to treat medical contitions, will ignore surgical reports his own residents provide detailing the condition found during surgery, and instead tells the patient that it's in their head and take pain killers. And this specialist has done this to a plethora of his patients.. Many to their detriment.

But when you consider washing your hands after going to the toilet, especially after doing 'number two's', especially when you work in the food industry (if this is the case here, and it's a big if), then that to me is knowingly engaging in risky behaviour that can and does lead to the deaths and injury of others.

Fortunately, people like that are fairly rare. Most serious incidents happen not because of criminal negligence, but because of human errors, ignorance, and the systematic encouragement of bad habits. Preventing those incidents is (I hope) more satisfying than punishing perps after the fact.

These types of outbreaks are generally rare. However if you look in recent years, we have had a few outbreaks of food contamination, much more than we had say, 10 years ago. It could very well be that those who take risky behaviour and fail to adhere to basic standards for safety could have the attitude that 'who's going to know?'.. and just not bother or are trying to save costs by say tapping into contaminated ground water to water their crops, without bothering to test the quality of the water in the first place (as one example). It is people who commit such acts who are the ones who should be made to face legal sanctions personally.

And that also sets the tone that the law and society won't tolerate that kind of behaviour or action, because the results can be catastrophic.

It certainly would be satisfying to imprison some nasty worker who never washes their hands because they just don't care about food safety. But, such a person is not likely to be the cause of this outbreak. And if an investigation goes in looking for such a person, it is likely to miss the real story of simple errors and procedural flaws, which means missing the opportunity to fix it.

This outbreak could have come from a variety of sources. But if a person was directly involved, then yes, they should have some questions to answer.

 

[Asguard]

dont both pete, bells is a lawyer and read only is a right wing yank. You are never going to convince them of the truth because that would mean putting aside there own blood lust and that just wont happen.

The fact that this is the offical policy of the NTSB and vertually every other air investigation branch, the fact that is exactly how the coronors court works, the fact that that is the reason for the M&M reviews in hospital (and why they are kept secret), the fact that this is why SAAS fought so hard for privilage in the serice for the same sorts of reviews. This all goes straight over there heads because of the red mist which clouds there eyes.

 

[Pete]

I'll simply say this, Pete, you are being FAR to idealistic. And, unfortunately, the real world does not revolve around purely idealistic thinking. So you have two choices, and only two - either move into the world of realism or continue to live in your fantasy world. In the latter you have no opportunity to do yourself or anyone else any good. So I hope you chose the former.

I'm just reporting what I've been led to believe - that actual results in practice are better if investigations are not conducted with retribution as a primary goal.

This isn't my idealism I'm arguing - it's reports of practical results. Check out the WHO resources I linked earlier.

 

[Pete]

If you have done nothing wrong, then you have done nothing wrong.

What we are talking about here is pure negligence or negligent acts that result in harm to the general public.

Actually, we aren't. We're talking about an incident of unknown cause that resulted in harm to the general public.

If that incident is investigated under the assumption that there are individuals to blame, then the investigation is unlikely to uncover the whole picture.

If people die, then yes, you should face some form of legal sanction. If your actions directly cause the death or injury of others (non-accidental of course) and you were found to be negligent, then yes, that should face legal sanction in my opinion.

Certainly, if they are criminally negligent. But an investigation for criminal negligence is not the best initial investigation.

Patel is not the only doctor who is a hack. I know of at least one other who refuses to treat medical contitions, will ignore surgical reports his own residents provide detailing the condition found during surgery, and instead tells the patient that it's in their head and take pain killers. And this specialist has done this to a plethora of his patients.. Many to their detriment.

So where's the key problem - with the individual doctor, or with the system that allows this to occur? Why does the doctor feel that this is appropriate behavior? How is that behavior being rewarded? Why are they not under pressure from the health professionals they interact with to change their behavior?

But when you consider washing your hands after going to the toilet, especially after doing 'number two's', especially when you work in the food industry (if this is the case here, and it's a big if), then that to me is knowingly engaging in risky behaviour that can and does lead to the deaths and injury of others.

To you.


These types of outbreaks are generally rare. However if you look in recent years, we have had a few outbreaks of food contamination, much more than we had say, 10 years ago.[/quote]
Have we really? If so, then is punishing individuals going to help? Or is there a problem in the system?

It could very well be that those who take risky behaviour and fail to adhere to basic standards for safety could have the attitude that 'who's going to know?'.. and just not bother or are trying to save costs by say tapping into contaminated ground water to water their crops, without bothering to test the quality of the water in the first place (as one example). It is people who commit such acts who are the ones who should be made to face legal sanctions personally.

And that also sets the tone that the law and society won't tolerate that kind of behaviour or action, because the results can be catastrophic.

I suggest that if that is the case, then punishing those people won't make the problem go away. Just like punishing an occasional bad doctor doesn't fix the system that allows people like Dr Patel to do bad things for so long.

It's not what 'law and society' does and doesn't tolerate that primarily sets personal behavior, but personal understanding and peer pressure. And that's where to focus your efforts in order to get results.

This outbreak could have come from a variety of sources. But if a person was directly involved, then yes, they should have some questions to answer.

How do you expect to find out, if you set a tone of incrimination before you begin?

 

[Bells]

Actually, we aren't. We're talking about an incident of unknown cause that resulted in harm to the general public.

If that incident is investigated under the assumption that there are individuals to blame, then the investigation is unlikely to uncover the whole picture.

I would imagine that the investigation is just to find the source and determine if there is a human cause or connection that allowed it to occur.

Certainly, if they are criminally negligent. But an investigation for criminal negligence is not the best initial investigation.

Who says this is the case in this instance?

Having said that however, people have died and others are gravely ill. At a guess, if they determine the cause, then it could be that it becomes a criminal investigation - if they manage to locate the source of the outbreak, then it could very well take on an investigation into whether there was criminal negligence involved.

It should not be ruled out in any case.

So where's the key problem - with the individual doctor, or with the system that allows this to occur? Why does the doctor feel that this is appropriate behavior? How is that behavior being rewarded? Why are they not under pressure from the health professionals they interact with to change their behavior?

The doctor does not care. As far as he is concerned, he tells you it's in your head, advises you to seek pain management therapy from your gp and shows you the door.. literally..

One thing with the medical profession, few will come forward and dob on another doctor. We saw that with Patel...

To you.

I would assume that anyone working in the manufacturing of food know they have to follow even basic hygiene.

Have we really? If so, then is punishing individuals going to help? Or is there a problem in the system?

Who says if anyone in previous cases have been punished?

I suggest that if that is the case, then punishing those people won't make the problem go away. Just like punishing an occasional bad doctor doesn't fix the system that allows people like Dr Patel to do bad things for so long.

And we have seen that not punishing doesn't fix it either. We assume that punishing won't make the problem go away. In the instance of food contamination - where, for example, a corporation is involved and they were negligent, they should not get away with it either.

It's not what 'law and society' does and doesn't tolerate that primarily sets personal behavior, but personal understanding and peer pressure. And that's where to focus your efforts in order to get results.

Peer pressure doesn't work when others are also too busy nurturing their own faults to make sure they don't get caught..

In other words, others may not be aware and may not care that a problem exists. Or they will remain silent lest their own practices comes under the microscope.

For the most part, an organisation will only be concerned with its profits and they aren't going to care if they are negligent .. just so long as they don't get caught and make a profit..

How do you expect to find out, if you set a tone of incrimination before you begin?

I guess we could hand out cake and hope they'll talk.. but somehow I doubt that will work.

I think the knowledge that negligence that causes death will be investigated should be warning enough..

 

[Read-Only]

dont both pete, bells is a lawyer and read only is a right wing yank. You are never going to convince them of the truth because that would mean putting aside there own blood lust and that just wont happen.

The fact that this is the offical policy of the NTSB and vertually every other air investigation branch, the fact that is exactly how the coronors court works, the fact that that is the reason for the M&M reviews in hospital (and why they are kept secret), the fact that this is why SAAS fought so hard for privilage in the serice for the same sorts of reviews. This all goes straight over there heads because of the red mist which clouds there eyes.

Get out of this thread. Asguard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You've got nothing to offer here.

"Treatment, treatment, treatment" - you think that's the answer to EVERYTHING! Because, according to you, anyone who commits a criminal act is mentally ill. BULL !!!! And anyone with any brains at all knows that is VERY stupid position to take.How about some scientific proof of it? Oh, yeah - there isn't any, is there. So just go back and play with your little para-medical toys and leave the adults of the world alone. We don't need you and we don't want your stupid ideas floating around in this thread also.

 

[Asguard]

you have lost the plot read, you are on a SCIENCE site and you have no concept of what EVIDENCE is. You are no better than that idiot in alasca who thinks that the science of global warming can be beaten by his little themomiter. Sad to see

 

[Read-Only]

I'm just reporting what I've been led to believe - that actual results in practice are better if investigations are not conducted with retribution as a primary goal.

This isn't my idealism I'm arguing - it's reports of practical results. Check out the WHO resources I linked earlier.

Then you haven't actually bothered to think it through yet.

Let me lay it out in very simple terms - and for the purpose of making it as clear as possible, let's assume - for the moment - that there IS an individual that's responsible for contaminating the food.

After all the publicity this 'event" has produced, do you honestly expect that individual to cooperate with the investigation and admit their involvement???

(I didn't think you would. Because, unlike Asguard, you're a logical thinker with a very sound mind.)

 

[Bells]

dont both pete, bells is a lawyer and read only is a right wing yank. You are never going to convince them of the truth because that would mean putting aside there own blood lust and that just wont happen.

The fact that this is the offical policy of the NTSB and vertually every other air investigation branch, the fact that is exactly how the coronors court works, the fact that that is the reason for the M&M reviews in hospital (and why they are kept secret), the fact that this is why SAAS fought so hard for privilage in the serice for the same sorts of reviews. This all goes straight over there heads because of the red mist which clouds there eyes.

And you are a dick.

Then again, you could be too busy covering your own arse in your profession to actually care, instead deeming everyone who does anything wrong to be mentally ill. In Asguard Land, everything is in black and white. Where no one can do wrong and if someone does, then they have to be mentally ill.

I have repeatedly seen you take pot shots at my profession. You are either jealous or you are a narcissist yourself who thinks you can do no wrong. In your world, saying that if someone is criminally negligent amounts to somehow being a child rapist or child murderer. You can't even determine if raping a child should be a crime or is a crime. And you accuse me of not being able to see the truth? What truth Asguard? Truth as you see it? Are you the only person who can see the truth?

I have asked you repeatedly now to cite your sources and I'm still waiting.

 

[Asguard]

Ive asked you repeatedly to show evidence that puting people through the criminal system works and you have failed to do so, i can only assume that is because there is none and your only trying to cover your own proffessions ass

 

[Bells]

Ive asked you repeatedly to show evidence that puting people through the criminal system works and you have failed to do so, i can only assume that is because there is none and your only trying to cover your own proffessions ass

And you have yet to prove that everyone who commits a crime is mentally ill.

Oh wait, you don't even believe in the concept of "crime" can you?

Are you even aware that a large portion of the "criminal justice system" involves rehabilitation - for criminal and violent behaviour - ie it's not treated as a mental illness because they are not mentally ill? And those who are deemed mentally ill can't even face trial? Yes? No? What? This does not exist in Asguard Land?

Because in Asguard Land, if someone kills another person or rapes a child, then apparently the guilt is supposed to be enough to force them into not re-offending. And if they do, then they are mentally ill.

I absolutely dread seeing you work as a paramedic. And do you know why? Because you will often be faced with a victim of crime and I dread that you are such a narcissist that you will tell your patient that the person who hurt them was probably mentally ill and that they would be stupid to go through the justice system because you think it is a failure..

 

[Pete]

dont both pete, bells is a lawyer

So what?

Get out of this thread. Asguard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You've got nothing to offer here.

Sure he has. But you can no longer consider each other's POV because you're yelling at each other. I think you (unconsciously?) ignore the sensible things he says and focus on the weak points in order to score points.

I often do the same. It's an awfully hard thing to avoid.

 

[Pete]

Then you haven't actually bothered to think it through yet.

Let me lay it out in very simple terms - and for the purpose of making it as clear as possible, let's assume - for the moment - that there IS an individual that's responsible for contaminating the food.

After all the publicity this 'event" has produced, do you honestly expect that individual to cooperate with the investigation and admit their involvement???

Certainly not if their actions were malicious, and certainly not if they are afraid of criminal charges.

If, on the other hand, they neglected to observer proper protocols because "that's what we often do," or because "I didn't think it really mattered", or because "it's really inconvenient," or because "I was under a lot of time pressure", or because they just stuffed up, then yes. I do expect that they would cooperate if they trusted that the purpose of the investigation was to prevent future problems rather than place blame.

And that isn't only my opinion - it is borne out in practice. People do admit their mistakes if they aren't afraid of being made a scapegoat.


So consider these two possibilities behind this incident:
1 - It was caused by the criminal negligence of one or more individuals.
2 - It was caused by the concurrent failure of a number of safety elements in the system.

If an investigation has to be based on assuming one of those possibilities, which is preferable?

If you assume (1), then many of the people involved will be uncooperative, because people fear being falsely accused.

If you assume (2), then the criminally guilty will be uncooperative, but people who trust that the investigation is not looking for scapegoats will cooperate.

 

[Pete]

I would imagine that the investigation is just to find the source and determine if there is a human cause or connection that allowed it to occur.

...and to duly punish those human connections?

Who says this is the case in this instance?

I do... that's the point I'm arguing, that an investigation should commence under the assumption that the system is to blame, that humans involved are part of the system, and that non-malicious human failings are correctable without criminal prosecution.

Having said that however, people have died and others are gravely ill. At a guess, if they determine the cause, then it could be that it becomes a criminal investigation - if they manage to locate the source of the outbreak, then it could very well take on an investigation into whether there was criminal negligence involved.

It should not be ruled out in any case.

I do agree.

But more broadly, I wonder about the consequentialist nature of criminal law...
Consider two people who perform the same negligent actions in the same circumstances. If one person's actions have no consequence, and the other's identical actions result in a death - why is only the second person guilty of negligence? Are we really trying to deter criminals, or do we like our deterrent with a heaping helping of vengeful Old Testament justice?

The doctor does not care. As far as he is concerned, he tells you it's in your head, advises you to seek pain management therapy from your gp and shows you the door.. literally..

One thing with the medical profession, few will come forward and dob on another doctor. We saw that with Patel...

Exactly. Punishing Patel is small satisfaction if the system continues to allow doctors to behave that way.
Punishing individuals is inadequate. Fixing the system is better.
In the medical profession, we have a long way to go. As students, we're academically encouraged to 'fess up to mistakes, and to tactfully challenge inappropriate behaviour in seniors. In practice, the long-standing hierarchical culture will take some time to shift.
But... we are taking steps in the right direction. Some steps (like the mandatory reporting legislation) is a bit heavy handed. Other steps (like the open, no-blame approach to incident investigation) is very encouraging.

I would assume that anyone working in the manufacturing of food know they have to follow even basic hygiene.

Why assume? Why not investigate?

Who says if anyone in previous cases have been punished?

No one. If cases like this are in fact becoming more common, then it suggests a systematic problem, not one that can be solved by finding individuals to prosecute.

And we have seen that not punishing doesn't fix it either. We assume that punishing won't make the problem go away. In the instance of food contamination - where, for example, a corporation is involved and they were negligent, they should not get away with it either.

We have seen that doing nothing doesn't fix it.
Why so fixated on punishment as the only approach to fixing problems?

Peer pressure doesn't work when others are also too busy nurturing their own faults to make sure they don't get caught.

In other words, others may not be aware and may not care that a problem exists. Or they will remain silent lest their own practices comes under the microscope.

For the most part, an organisation will only be concerned with its profits and they aren't going to care if they are negligent .. just so long as they don't get caught and make a profit.

If all a person's peers are afraid of being caught for something, there's a serious problem indeed. Either with the people around them, or with the punitive system.

I'm not going to argue about the punishment of organisations... that's a very different issue again.

I guess we could hand out cake and hope they'll talk.. but somehow I doubt that will work.

People who try that say it does work, if you don't go explicitly looking for people to blame.

 

[adoucette]

Some things are common practice. Say washing your hands after using the bathroom, especially more so when working in the food industry as one example. If someone's negligence leads to numerous deaths and thousands ill, many of whom with permanent damage, then I'm sorry, but the mere hope that he or she has learned their lesson isn't enough. What it should lead to is prosecution for negligence and manslaughter and stronger regulations put into place to try to prevent it from happening again.

What it comes down to is this. If your actions lead to the deaths of others, then you should be held responsible for it. If you directly cause people's death, then yes, you should be held responsible.

http://www.thelocal.de/national/20110611-35603.html

German officials say that the likely source of the deadly E. coli epidemic, a vegetable sprout farm in Lower Saxony, will probably not face criminal prosecution.

“According to all indications so far, the company did nothing wrong,” Gert Lindemann, agriculture minister in the state, told the Rhein Neckar Zeitung in remarks published on Saturday.

He said the organic farm in the village of Bienenbüttel had high hygiene standards and that it was still unclear where the aggressive enterohaemorrhagic E. coli (EHEC) bacteria had originally come from.

And as far as blaiming anyone, that's a major problem, since the actual source of the original E. Coli doesn't have to come from any form of negligence.

Studies have found feces, salmonella, and E. coli on bed linens—even ones fresh out of a washer, Gerba says. His research shows that sheets can contain 0.1 gram of feces, salmonella, and E. coli after just one night's rest. That means they'd collectively contain about 10 billion microbes.

http://www.menshealth.com/mhlists/fight_household_germs/wash_your_sheets.php

The fact is The isolated outbreak strain STEC O104:H4 is very rare. Prior to the current outbreak, only one case has been documented in literature, and this case was a woman in Korea in 2005.

But, our now industrial means of food production (large vats growing many hundreds of pounds of sprouts at a time) simply means what would have been a few people getting sick just a few decades or so ago becomes a major outbreak as the output from one large contaminated growing container is spread far and wide and all at once and worse, since the product was fresh bean sprouts, most were eaten uncooked.

http://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/Publications/1105_TER_Risk_assessment_EColi.pdf

Finally consider that food poisoning is simply a fact of life and is somewhat inherent in the nature of bacteria, virus and parasites.
They have evolved to be very resistant to being killed and very persistent in the environment and quite adapted to getting passed on from person to person.
In the US about 5,000 people per year die from food poisoning.
Of those deaths, we figure out why for about 2,000 of them.

Punishing the few people we THINK might have been the initial cause of a bad outbreak, particularly when there is no INTENT to harm and the exact same activity can have DRASTICALLY different outcomes just based on the nature of the food contaminated and the specific toxicity of the germ involved, seems rather cruel.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol5no5/mead.htm

Arthur

 

[kira]

Here is a question for Asguard and Pete (if I am not mistaken about who's taking the no-punishment side). By ensuring no criminal punishment for intentional and non-intentional mistake in this outbreak (which has caused 29 people died and some 2500 others ill), can you guarantee that people will still come out clean? :shrug:

In my opinion, it is even counter productive, because:
* the guilty ones will not be afraid to lie. At least if police is involved, they will be afraid of giving false statement, because to lie to authority will cause them in an even bigger trouble.
* even if there is no criminal punishment involved, the guilty ones will probably want to save themselves from other risks, like losing jobs (who want to continue to employ people who are careless to the point of causing many other people died and ill?), fear of getting revenged by people who lost their family members (I think it is possible), fear of losing credibility, fear of getting hated, etc etc. Why confess anyway when the alternative is safer?

Here is an analogy. Let say that you are a student living in a dorm where 200 other students live in the same building. One day you intentionally/ unintentionally caused fire and everything get burnt. Other people lose their passports, academic certificates, important papers, etc etc (btw, I think we could agree that our lives is the most valuable thing compared to belongings). Then the authority comes to investigate and ask everyone to give a testimony, ensuring that no one will get punished from this event. You, as the one who caused the fire, know, that if you don't confess, there is a possibility that no one will ever know, and can continue life as it is. On the other hand, if you confess, you know that you have caused other people belongings (or even lives) gone, you know that no one will feel save to live near you anymore, you might not find other place to live and your study will get disturbed and so on and so on. Don't you think it makes sense that you will prefer not to tell anyone that it is YOU causing the fire? Now, if police is involved, and you decided to lie, you know that by investigating the evidence, police will probably one day find out, that it was you who started the fire. If you lie to them, you know that you'll get even harder punishment, so why not telling the truth? You might got less punishment or even probably no punishment at all, because turn out that everything was only accident, everything was beyond your knowledge, and that you never did such mistakes before.

My point is, by ensuring no punishment, I don't think it will help an investigation, it could even become counter productive! In fact, sometimes by ensuring that there is a punishment, people will do further steps to cover up their mistakes, which make them eventually caught. You know for example the case of Amanda Knox, an American student who is prosecuted for killing fellow room mate in Italy? After the murder, she and friends wanted to cover up mistakes, so they decided to buy cleaning solutions to clear the bloody floor and their footsteps. If I am not mistaken, police found out that they waited early morning for a shop to open just to buy the cleaner. So, how did they say they don't know about the murder when they were indeed cleaning up the floor the same morning? There are a lot of examples of making false evidence which eventually giving important clue to investigation, because people aren't smart enough to cover up their mistakes. They think they can cheat police, but the evidence speak for themselves.

Edit: here is a link (it's not the best link I can find, but this is just an example)
http://news-events.indie.my/2011/03/14/how-can-i-write-a-letter-to-amanda-knox/

A shopkeeper testified to seeing Knox come into the store to buy cleaning supplies, most notably the bleach that was used (unsuccessfully) to clean the murder weapon, at 7:45 on the morning after the murder. Knox claimed not to have gone to the store.​

 

[adoucette]

My point is, by ensuring no punishment, I don't think it will help an investigation, it could even become counter productive! In fact, sometimes by ensuring that there is a punishment, people will do further steps to cover up their mistakes, which make them eventually caught.

But you can't confuse covering up a murder with accidental contamination with as few as ONE bacteria.

Worse, considering the incubation time, and how long it takes to track back to the source, you are asking about investigation into what would have been totally unremarkable activities that happened many weeks ago.

In this case the outbreak was first noticed in Mid May, but given the time it takes to grow and ship sprouts and then the 3 to 4 days for the first symptons and a week till the first death, we are talking about a contamination event that probably occured around the end of April.

Now consider, if you were charged in the case (because a fecal test showed you harbored the strain of E Coli) how would you prove you washed your hands every time you went to the bathroom last April?

At present while the officials think they know where this originated (organic bean sprout farm in Saxony) but they still don't have a clue as how the E Coli bacteria got to the farm (worker or seeds).

Arthur