E Coli outbreak in Germany - crime and punishment

[Mind Over Matter]

I'm not sure who you mean but are you talking about the customer Bells was? What do you think would constitiue a warning? Something like a sign saying, "Caution, eating can be a hazard to your health." ?

Yes – that could be. We don't know all the facts here, so I have to assume some things. With that in mind...

We can pretend that the system/legislation is always at fault if we want, but it just ain't so, as agreed my a majority of SF members as well as my personal knowledge and experience. There are times, even if a minority of times, that the person is at fault.

Therefore, two things: 1. People/implementer (farmer)’s fault 2. System’s fault.

All I'm saying is that it ain't always as it seems. Sometimes the legislation/country is not being stupid, and sometimes the person needs to be disciplined and, if necessary, jailed to solve the problem. To pretend otherwise is to live in fantasy land, IMO.

Personally, I'm not really concerned about the degree of the punishment. It could be 30 days in jail or a fine of 1,000 - or whatever. The whole point of the punishment to make some lazy slob aware that there ARE consequences for his/her actions (or inactions).

Amen

 

[Read-Only]

Teach the bastard a lesson, hey?

Sounds a lot like revenge to me.

No!!! You missed my point entirely - I'm NOT talking about the one(s) that did it this time - I talking specifically about the NEXT lazy slob that wouldn't bother giving it a thought UNLESS he/she/they realize there is a price to pay.

And if you happen to talking about the drunk driver (we can't tell since you didn't bother to quote anything) but the same would apply there also.

Also, in the event you're still missing it, there's no revenge in EITHER case. :shrug:

 

[Asguard]

Yes – that could be. We don't know all the facts here, so I have to assume some things. With that in mind...

We can pretend that the system/legislation is always at fault if we want, but it just ain't so, as agreed my a majority of SF members as well as my personal knowledge and experience. There are times, even if a minority of times, that the person is at fault.

Therefore, two things: 1. People/implementer (farmer)’s fault 2. System’s fault.

All I'm saying is that it ain't always as it seems. Sometimes the legislation/country is not being stupid, and sometimes the person needs to be disciplined and, if necessary, jailed to solve the problem. To pretend otherwise is to live in fantasy land, IMO.


Amen

so whats the punishment for being a tobacco CEO? 8+ MILLION per year for the 5+ MILLION deaths?

 

[Mind Over Matter]

so whats the punishment for being a tobacco CEO? 8+ MILLION per year for the 5+ MILLION deaths?

Can you blame the CEO? No. I would blame the system/government instead.

 

[Asguard]

Can you blame the CEO? No. I would blame the system/government instead.

HA, so if you fail to wash your hands and 1 person dies your a monster deserving of having your own life destroyed but if your products kill over 5 million a year AND YOU KNOW DAM WELL EVERY ONE YOU SELL WILL KILL, its not your fault its the goverments. what a joke

 

[kira]

Asguard, two wrongs doesn't make one right. Also, to take a tobacco example for E. coli contamination is dishonest, because they are not comparable. When you smoke a tobacco, you fully know well the consequence, so you are the one who should be held responsible. When people bought salad, no one expect to die or get long life kidney transplant. With tobacco it's like, if I make a hole on the ground and then put a sign next to it "if you step into it, you'll fall", you read the sign and then you step and fall anyway. It's your own mistakes and you have yourself to blame.

People, this is a circular argument, nothing good can come out of it. Fortunately, real life doesn't support you who do not respect law and order, or justice and responsibility. I gave you already these two examples in real life (I admit these are a bit extreme):

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/food_and_drink/article2409801.ece
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/uk-wales-north-east-wales-12403279

As Bells once said, you only care those that affect you directly. Just think about this Pete/Asguard: what if it is your son who died because of food contamination, Pete? what if it is your girlfriend, Asguard? Will you shrug your shoulder and say "so, what, I am not into revenge?", or would you want justice to be served so same thing will not happen to other people's love ones? Punishment doesn't always effective as a deterrent, but this is the only tool (or probably among several tools) that we as a society have, to maintain law and order. Until people can find a better solution, we can only rely on this. If you don't agree with this, go try to change the law or propose a better solution.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

Asguard, two wrongs doesn't make one right. Also, to take a tobacco example for E. coli contamination is dishonest, because they are not comparable. When you smoke a tobacco, you fully know well the consequence, so you are the one who should be held responsible. When people bought salad, no one expect to die or get long life kidney transplant. With tobacco it's like, if I make a hole on the ground and then put a sign next to it "if you step into it, you'll fall", you read the sign and then you step and fall anyway. It's your own mistakes and you have yourself to blame.

People, this is a circular argument, nothing good can come out of it. Fortunately, real life doesn't support you who do not respect law and order, or justice and responsibility. I gave you already these two examples in real life (I admit these are a bit extreme):

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/food_and_drink/article2409801.ece
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/uk-wales-north-east-wales-12403279

As Bells once said, you only care those that affect you directly. Just think about this Pete/Asguard: what if it is your son who died because of food contamination, Pete? what if it is your girlfriend, Asguard? Will you shrug your shoulder and say "so, what, I am not into revenge?", or would you want justice to be served so same thing will not happen to other people's love ones? Punishment doesn't always effective as a deterrent, but this is the only tool (or probably among several tools) that we as a society have, to maintain law and order. Until people can find a better solution, we can only rely on this. If you don't agree with this, go try to change the law or propose a better solution.

Very well said.

 

[Asguard]

Asguard, two wrongs doesn't make one right. Also, to take a tobacco example for E. coli contamination is dishonest, because they are not comparable. When you smoke a tobacco, you fully know well the consequence, so you are the one who should be held responsible. When people bought salad, no one expect to die or get long life kidney transplant. With tobacco it's like, if I make a hole on the ground and then put a sign next to it "if you step into it, you'll fall", you read the sign and then you step and fall anyway. It's your own mistakes and you have yourself to blame.

People, this is a circular argument, nothing good can come out of it. Fortunately, real life doesn't support you who do not respect law and order, or justice and responsibility. I gave you already these two examples in real life (I admit these are a bit extreme):

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/food_and_drink/article2409801.ece
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/uk-wales-north-east-wales-12403279

As Bells once said, you only care those that affect you directly. Just think about this Pete/Asguard: what if it is your son who died because of food contamination, Pete? what if it is your girlfriend, Asguard? Will you shrug your shoulder and say "so, what, I am not into revenge?", or would you want justice to be served so same thing will not happen to other people love ones? Punishment doesn't always effective as a deterrent, but this is the only tool (or probably among several tools) that we as a society have, to maintain law and order. Until people can find a better solution, we can only rely on this.

what is justice?

I would HOPE i am one of the people who calls for things to be improved so no one goes through it again but thats not actually terribly relivent. Why do you think that judges NOT the victom hand out sentances? because as a sociaty we dont CARE what the victom wants, its not relivent to the "justice" system.

Oh and BTW nicatine is one of the most adictive substances on earth, more so than herion and yet some countries EXECUTE those who sell that and make no mestake the tobaco companies know EXACTLY what there product does and do everything they can to get people adicted as young as possible when they have the least ability to resist. Myself i started smoking when i was suicidle and wasnt being treated and it took me over 10 YEARS to stop. Under the US statute that counts as depraved indiference murder at least.

 

[Bells]

Interesting example.
Would you rather punish the dodgy practitioners who get caught, or adjust the system so that dodgy practices have less chance to flourish?
If you had to choose one or the other, which would you choose?

Do you assume it is impossible to have both?

Wrong.
It's about having the courage to choose the course of action that has the best chance of preventing future incidents.

You don't think holding people accountable or responsible for their actions as well as implementing policy is not a good way to go about it?

If that means some people are going to get away with something, that's a price worth paying.

That is very easy for you to say. Until the shoe is on the other foot and you find yourself or a loved one dying because someone did something without even thinking about how it would affect you or your loved one, because they knew that the person who did it previously got away with it.

It is easy to say that it's a price worth paying when it does not concern you or someone you love. Trust me, I know this. I have been on the receiving end of the whole 'if that means some people are going to get away with something, that's a price worth paying' and I can assure you, it does not fix the problem.

"Taking personal responsibility" is something you say that people just don't do. You have argued that it must be forced upon them by punishment.

Why? What benefit is gained from punishing someone who refuses to take personal responsibility?

You should be asking what benefit does society gain by holding people responsible for their action, whether they take it or not?...

I differ in what it means to be held accountable (criminal charges are not the only means), and I differ in the value of holding someone responsible if it means losing opportunities to fix a faulty system.

Giving people cookies and acting as if nothing bad happened isn't going to fix it either. The Patel issue is a clear example of that. Or it should have been.

Do you think he should be held criminally responsible for the number of deaths he caused?

 

[kira]

what is justice?

I would HOPE i am one of the people who calls for things to be improved so no one goes through it again but thats not actually terribly relivent.

That you side with those who commit the gross negligence instead of the victims is a mystery to me. Anyway... Did you read the example in the link that I gave above? The butcher got 12 months jail punishment, whereas the boy died forever. If you see it from the victim family's point of view, it's not even comparable, right? Because it's not revenge. It's to give the lesson to the butcher, that keeping cockroach, dead insect, spill of blood etc contaminated the tools that they use to prepare school kids' lunch is not okay. Sometimes, you warn people one thing, but it didn't work, so you have no alternative than to force them a bit harsh, expecting that they will probably change.

Why do you think that judges NOT the victom hand out sentances? because as a sociaty we dont CARE what the victom wants, its not relivent to the "justice" system.

Because if the victims (let say the sick ones) are given the chance to hand out sentences, it will become revenge. Do you know a case in Iran where a girl lost her beautiful face because a guy whom she rejected to marry her throw an acid into her face? Jury gave her the chance to pick punishment, and she chooses to throw acid back. That's barbaric.

Oh and BTW nicatine is one of the most adictive substances on earth, more so than herion and yet some countries EXECUTE those who sell that and make no mestake the tobaco companies know EXACTLY what there product does and do everything they can to get people adicted as young as possible when they have the least ability to resist. Myself i started smoking when i was suicidle and wasnt being treated and it took me over 10 YEARS to stop. Under the US statute that counts as depraved indiference murder at least.

Sue them, then.

 

[Pete]

No!!! You missed my point entirely - I'm NOT talking about the one(s) that did it this time - I talking specifically about the NEXT lazy slob that wouldn't bother giving it a thought UNLESS he/she/they realize there is a price to pay.

It didn't sound like that's what you meant. It sounded very much like the 'lazy slob' in question was the one being punished.

there's no revenge in EITHER case. :shrug:

Rubbish.

Two drink drivers, both perform the same actions in the same circumstances.
By chance...
One's actions result in crashing their vehicle, with no person harmed.
The other's actions result in the deaths of a busload of 35 people.

Should both drivers receive the same punishment?

 

[Pete]

Bells and Read-Only, this post is for you too, especially the links at the bottom.

As Bells once said, you only care those that affect you directly. Just think about this Pete/Asguard: what if it is your son who died because of food contamination, Pete? what if it is your girlfriend, Asguard? Will you shrug your shoulder and say "so, what, I am not into revenge?", or would you want justice to be served so same thing will not happen to other people's love ones?

Yes, we all want to avoid future incidents.
No, seeking people to punish isn't the best way of doing it.

Until people can find a better solution, we can only rely on this. If you don't agree with this, go try to change the law or propose a better solution.

Kira, you're arguing against a position that no-one is taking.

Yes, people should be deterred from unsafe practices.
Yes, punishment of some description has a role to play.
But that is something that should be happening all the time.

When investigating a serious incident like this E.Coli outbreak, it is more important to discover as much as possible about the causes than it is to punish people involved even if that means offering amnesty in order to encourage honest cooperation.

Here's some background reading for how this works in practice:

Wikipedia: Root Cause Analysis
World Health Organisation: Learning from Error
NASA: Root Cause Analysis (pdf)​

And here is a very interesting case study of a tragic incident:
Wayne Jowett
People made mistakes. A boy died. A doctor was imprisoned for 11 months on remand during the trial, received a sentence of 8 months for manslaughter, then walked free.

Read the case study, then say whether you think the prosecution and punishment were appropriate.

You should also read this BMJ editorial about the sentence (written by a barrister).

 

[Pete]

Do you assume it is impossible to have both?

Not necessarily.
But if it were impossible to have both, which would you choose?

That is very easy for you to say. Until the shoe is on the other foot and you find yourself or a loved one dying because someone did something without even thinking about how it would affect you or your loved one, because they knew that the person who did it previously got away with it.

It is easy to say that it's a price worth paying when it does not concern you or someone you love. Trust me, I know this. I have been on the receiving end of the whole 'if that means some people are going to get away with something, that's a price worth paying' and I can assure you, it does not fix the problem.

Yes, it is easy for me to say.
Yes, I might think differently if I were a victim... but vengeance is human nature.

And no, a good investigation will not always fix the problem... but it gives you the best chance.

You should be asking what benefit does society gain by holding people responsible for their action, whether they take it or not?

No, I asked you a specific question, which you didn't answer. Why?

Giving people cookies and acting as if nothing bad happened isn't going to fix it either.

Of course it isn't. That would be stupid.

The Patel issue is a clear example of that. Or it should have been.

What do you mean?

Do you think he should be held criminally responsible for the number of deaths he caused?

I think he should never have been employed by Queensland Health.
Failing that, I think his work practices should have been corrected long before people were harmed.

Punishing him after the fact is cold comfort, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Asguard]

pete have you studied a case in NZ's womens hospital which lead to the cartwright inquiry?

I head about it at uni and then did some of my own resurch on it, terible incident because of an idiot but the failures were those around him who did nothing. This lead to improvements in ethical oversight of resurch (especially informed consent) but how much quicker and how many lives could have been saved if the culture was one of reporting mestakes for investigation rather than of laying blame?

How many incidences of child neglect and abuse are missed every year because those who should be reporting them are concerned about the "mud sticking", hell how many are concerned about people going through the criminal justice system when what they need is goverment surport from the child welfare system.

It astounds me how people can only ever think of whos head they can put on a spike rather than "how can we make this a learning experiance so it doesnt happen again". this goes right down to sports where people are more interested in sacking the couch for a few bad performances than how they can improve the team.

Maybe its because systematic changes dont show instant results and are slower and more difficult than putting that head on a stake

 

[Pete]

pete have you studied a case in NZ's womens hospital which lead to the cartwright inquiry?

I do remember an ethics lecture that mentioned that case.

It astounds me how people can only ever think of whos head they can put on a spike rather than "how can we make this a learning experiance so it doesnt happen again". this goes right down to sports where people are more interested in sacking the couch for a few bad performances than how they can improve the team.

Maybe its because systematic changes dont show instant results and are slower and more difficult than putting that head on a stake

It's human nature, built into our genes, probably because of how effective it is in tribal societies.

 

[adoucette]

If you want someone DESERVING of being torn limb from limb why dont you go after tobaco CEOs bells. They arnt acidentally killing, they arnt NEGLEGENTLY killing. They are DELIBRATLY causing the deaths of more than 5 MILLION people per year. How many deaths do you need to cause to be declaired a serial killer? 3? whats the word for some who murders 5 MILLION for the sake of greed?

Why just the CEOs?
Why not the Tobacco Farmers?
Why not all the people involved in the harvest, drying, curing, and manufacture of cigarettes, cigars and chewing tobacco?

Because for some reason you have it in for CEOs.

But the truth of the matter is that USERS of tobacco make the choice to do so of their own FREE WILL, and do so knowing the inherent risks.

Using your logic we would also lock up people who make Hang Gliders, because each year people die while using them. Or CEO's who run companies that make Rock Climbing gear, because each year people die while trying to scale mountains, etc etc etc.

We don't because people have a RIGHT to take risks with their life if it makes them happy.

In fact in the US our Declaration of Independence spells that out:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The plain fact is that smoking apparently makes people happy and it is their choice about trading that happiness for the negative impact it might have on their lives.

In the Bean Sprouts case though no one thought they were risking death or kidney failure when they ordered a salad.

Arthur

 

[Asguard]

actually i said everyone in the industry not just the CEOs and if you use a hang glider correctly you should live, if you use a smoke correctly 1 in 2 of you will die.

BTW those who got sick COULD have taken responcibility for themselves and cooked them couldnt they?

 

[adoucette]

It astounds me how people can only ever think of whos head they can put on a spike rather than "how can we make this a learning experiance so it doesnt happen again". this goes right down to sports where people are more interested in sacking the couch for a few bad performances than how they can improve the team.

Maybe its because systematic changes dont show instant results and are slower and more difficult than putting that head on a stake

It doesn't have to be a "one of the other" situation.

Some learning experiences are much more effective if you start the lecture by pointing out that failure to pay attention may result in your head on a stake.

That said, punishments should also be proportional to issues like intent and reasonable expectations that people will not be grossly negligent in their actions which could endanger others. What that means is that punishments aren't necessarily proportional to the end result of the action.

Which is why we make a clear distinction between say Murder and involuntary mansluaughter, with the main difference being the latter crime does not include the intent to kill.

In this case it is highly unlikely that we will find any deliberate intent to harm, and so any punishment for an accident should obviously not be as severe as a deliberate act.

So far (though we still don't know how the E. coli got into the sprouts) there does not appear to be any gross negligence on part of the grower (they are said to have had very high standards of hygiene) and so again, in the absence of gross negligence any punishment should again ratchet down another notch.

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

actually i said everyone in the industry not just the CEOs and if you use a hang glider correctly you should live, if you use a smoke correctly 1 in 2 of you will die.

No, you can die even if you use them correctly.

But again you miss the point.
People, even YOU, choose to smoke and you are warned ahead of time of the dangers of doing so.
But in our society we give you the right to make that decision and so the people in the Tobacco industry are not doing anything wrong.

Oh, and of those: "1 in 2 will die", that's just BS.
We ALL die.
What you really mean is they probably won't live quite as long as they would have.

But that's their choice, to risk trading a few years of life for whatever pleasure they get from smoking.

You know, that "pursuit of happiness" thing I mentioned.

BTW those who got sick COULD have taken responcibility for themselves and cooked them couldnt they?

Not if they are served in a fresh green salad.

And we do we have a reasonable expectation that we can eat fresh/raw produce safely.

Arthur

 

[Asguard]

No, you can die even if you use them correctly.

But again you miss the point.
People, even YOU, choose to smoke and you are warned ahead of time of the dangers of doing so.
But in our society we give you the right to make that decision and so the people in the Tobacco industry are NOT doing anything wrong.

Oh, and of those, 1 in 2 will die, that's just BS.
We ALL die.
What you really mean is they probably won't live quite as long as they would have.

But that's there choice, to risk trading a few years of life for the years of pleasure they get from smoking.



Not if they are served in a fresh green salad.

And we do we have a reasonable expectation that we can eat fresh/raw produce safely.

Arthur

wrong, wrong, wrong

1) everything about smoking is designed to be adictive. Once again all the pritty colours are designed in such away as to apeal to the young BEFORE THE FRONTAL LOBE HAS FULLY DEVELOPED. Hell in indoneasia these death dealers are even trying to hook young kids one of whom at least was a pack a day (or was it a carton a day) before he was even out of napies (hes a todler). Further more smoking is directly linked to SES and Mental health with people who suffer a mental illness 10 times more likly to smoke. Adiction itself is a mental illness and not something to blame people for.

2) once you start smoking its almost impossible to quit, it takes on adverage over 10 times to quit and even thats no garentie with relapses. This isnt people chosing to continue smoking, its an adiction.

those 2 together are aimed squarly at stopping informed concent. If your adicted to something your not making a choice of your own free will and if your hooked before your brain can fully develop, while you are suffing mental illness you dont have a hope in hell of making an informed decision. My "free choice" (as you put it) to start smoking was made while trying to decide if it would hurt to much to slash my wrists open. Does that sound like "free will"? I spent the next 10 years TRYING to quit does that sound like a free choice?

Im sick and tired of people who havent the faintest idea what they are talking about describing adiction as free choice.