Mining disaster: Should CEO be charged with murder?

cosmictraveler

cosmictraveler

Be kind to yourself always.
Valued Senior Member
It has happened again. A coal company has been fined and given over 500 violations just in the past year. Now that mine had a disaster which it knew about and could have fixed the problems OR shut down until the problems were fixed. The company did not fix the problems and now we have a disaster that could have been prevented. If those in charge knew beforehand of the impending disaster then why shouldn't they be chjarged with at least manslaughter or , to me, murder, for those lives could have been saved if the violations were fixed.

What say you? Charge the executives or just let them get off as they usually do time after time.
 
I see opinions, but no facts.

If it can be shown that the execs knew about the danger and deliberately avoided taking action- then I would agree to Manslaughter.

If it cannot be shown such, you cannot claim they must have bought the judges off. In Law, it's far preferrable to let the guilty walk than to imprison the innocent.

I am not stating one way or the other if the Execs are innocent or guilty. I simply have no information to go on.
 
Neverfly said:
I see opinions, but no facts.

If it can be shown that the execs knew about the danger and deliberately avoided taking action- then I would agree to Manslaughter.

If it cannot be shown such, you cannot claim they must have bought the judges off. In Law, it's far preferrable to let the guilty walk than to imprison the innocent.

I am not stating one way or the other if the Execs are innocent or guilty. I simply have no information to go on.
Click to expand...

Facts have been given, wither you want to recognize them as such is another story.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1461461911&play=1

And you can always do your own research.
 
Neverfly said:
I see opinions, but no facts.

If it can be shown that the execs knew about the danger and deliberately avoided taking action- then I would agree to Manslaughter.

If it cannot be shown such, you cannot claim they must have bought the judges off. In Law, it's far preferrable to let the guilty walk than to imprison the innocent.

I am not stating one way or the other if the Execs are innocent or guilty. I simply have no information to go on.
Click to expand...

this is why unions exist, why goverment departments and agencies like work cover, work safe ect exist. To make sure events like this DONT happen and to procute those who did OR SHOULD have known
 
joepistole said:
Facts have been given, wither you want to recognize them as such is another story.
Click to expand...
Whether I recognize them as such is my business, yes.
Which is irrelevant as I was pointing out that the thread, as yet, contained none.
joepistole said:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1461461911&play=1

And you can always do your own research.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link.

Yes, I can. However, those who make claims must support their claims. I need not do work on behalf of others.
 
Neverfly said:
I need not do work on behalf of others.
Click to expand...

No but perhaps you should do it for yourself regardless of the source. Just because the "fact" comes from a right wing source does not give it automatic credibility. And just because a "fact" comes from a non sanctioned right wing source, does not mean it is false.

That is why you should always do your own research. :)
 
joepistole said:
No but perhaps you should do it for yourself regardless of the source. Just because the "fact" comes from a right wing source does not give it automatic credibility. And just because a "fact" comes from a non sanctioned right wing source, does not mean it is false.

That is why you should always do your own research. :)
Click to expand...

I agree. That's what independent verification is.

Regardless, a presenter needs to support his claim.
 
There are two issues, one general, one specific.....

1) should CEOs B of D's and relevent management be prosecutable when things like this happen? And if so, why does it almost never seem to happen? (why do these things tend to end up in civil court?)

2) in this particular case were some people high up in the company criminally culpable?

I think it should be obvious that question 1 is yes. And then we need to ask ourselves if this actually happens and if they end up serving time when these things actually make it to court. And do their punishments reflect the severity of the crime - compare their sentences to the sentence some regular man or woman on the street convicted of manslaughter receives for example.

Unfortunately, in general, if you kill people in the ways some rich people can and do, you tend to fair better in the court system. And this is not even bringing into play issues like quality of legal representation.
 
This mine should be subject to civil forfeiture, since it seems to be an integral part in criminal activity resulting in a hazard to public safety.
 
Nasor said:
I would guess negligent homicide. You might be able to stretch it to involuntary manslaughter, but I doubt it.
Click to expand...

So the owners of a business that were told that impending disaster could happen if violations were not fixed and deaths could happen, that isn't enough to convict anyone on a manslaughter charge at least? If I were to be the attorney general I sure would try to see to it that those in charge of this mining operation are charged with manslaughter at least and perhaps second degree murder for they knew well in advance that if they did not fix the problems deaths would happen.
 
cosmictraveler said:
So the owners of a business that were told that impending disaster could happen if violations were not fixed and deaths could happen, that isn't enough to convict anyone on a manslaughter charge at least? If I were to be the attorney general I sure would try to see to it that those in charge of this mining operation are charged with manslaughter at least and perhaps second degree murder for they knew well in advance that if they did not fix the problems deaths would happen.
Click to expand...

Actually negligence doesnt always require that someone TELL them something is wrong, it can be judged that someone SHOULD have known as well. For instance there are some house owners in Australia at risk of industrial manslaughter charges because they "didnt provide a safe workplace" by checking the work practices of the insulation installers who were putting insulation in there roof when they were electrocuted
 
Nasor said:
I would guess negligent homicide. You might be able to stretch it to involuntary manslaughter, but I doubt it.
Click to expand...

Could be, but I doubt anyone will be criminally prosecuted for this event. The executives involved and the company have the best lawyers and politicians money can buy. They even have a supreme in their back pocket. So this goes no where.
 
joepistole said:
Could be, but I doubt anyone will be criminally prosecuted for this event. The executives involved and the company have the best lawyers and politicians money can buy. They even have a supreme in their back pocket. So this goes no where.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm...

However, mine experts interviewed by CNN said the MINER Act and the MSHA regulations have proven insufficient to crack down on chronic offenders.

One reason is an apparent loophole in MSHA policy that allows mining companies cited for violations to avoid being designated as multiple offenders facing a government-ordered shutdown.

MSHA looks at citations over the previous two years to determine whether a pattern of safety violations exists. If it determines such a pattern, MSHA can then begin steps to shut down a mine or a particular part of a mine where the violations have occurred.

The problem, experts say, is that MSHA only considers final citations -- those that have completed the potentially lengthy administrative and legal process.

While mine operators are compelled to quickly abate any safety violations, they can appeal particularly troublesome citations and subsequent fines to delay final resolution of them until after the expiration of MSHA's two-year window for consideration.

Tony Oppegard, a Kentucky mine safety expert who formerly worked for the MSHA, said stricter enforcement of the so-called "pattern of violations" regulation could have prevented the latest tragedy.

The Upper Big Branch Mine operated by Massey Energy "would have been on a pattern a long time ago" due to multiple citations for severe safety violations, according to Oppegard.

"If that mine is not placed on a pattern, there's not a mine in the country that would be," Oppegard said.

Massey officials didn't immediately return calls from CNN on Thursday.

However, CEO Don Blankenship has defended his company's safety record this week, saying Massey's mines "are typically in better shape than others that are in our area or in the country. ... Our creativity on safety is second to none."

Celeste Monforton, a George Washington University occupational health professor, said some mine operators exploit the loophole in MSHA policy by creating "litigation limbo" so that cited violations remain unresolved beyond the agency's two-year window.

"It's my opinion that they're gaming the system," Monforton said.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/04/09/west.virginia.mine.safety/index.html
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top