E Coli outbreak in Germany - crime and punishment

So the question is, should the penalty be related to the negligent action or the outcome?

Seems if it is relative to the outcome than all you do is introduce a measure of luck into the process.

If for instance one looks at the statistics and finds that when trucks runaway on hills due to the parking break not being set that in 1 out of 10 cases one or more fatalities results and that in one 1 out of 5 cases serious injury and/or property damage results, but in 7 out of 10 cases nothing happens at all.

Then the penalty for any case where a truck runs away because the parking break is not set should be based on the average outcome, not the specific outcome.

Meaning 7 out of 10 people shouldn't get away scott free just because they were lucky and their truck did no damage, nor should the unlucky person who does the exact same negligent act spend his life in jail because his truck hit a day care center.

In my experience though, I find both laws and prosecuters proportion their punishment much more to outcome than to action.

Arthur

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't think anyone in this discussion is just shrugging this off.
I think everyone thinks that we should do all we can do to find out how this happened and to prevent a similar occurance in the future.

The disagreement seems to be about how best to go about that and what should be done IF we eventually find that a specific person that is responsible.

And then there is the issue of proportionality. What should be the penalty if it turns out the negligence was no more than someone not using soap one time when washing their hands?

Is it right to ignore the fact that this is a very common occurance and yet recognize the societal value in making a very public example of this person by imposing a harsh sentence such that in the future others will think twice about not washing their hands with hot water and soap?

I think you meant: people should NOT eat sprouts and die.

Which I agree with.

On the other hand, I'm not for punishing someone in this case unless it was found to be deliberate or if an accident, then a clear case of gross negligence can be established.

Kira posted two examples a few posts back that I think give a decent example of what would clearly qualify as gross negligence.

But I have to admit, it is those harsh examples which we tend to remember and cause us to alter our behavior.

Arthur

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Just for your info, whoever will be convicted (if there are any) for this "crime" in Germany, you wouldn't get to hear their names. German privacy law is totally opposite with that of First (?) Amendment in the USA. If their names somehow appear in the news, you wouldn't see their faces, and once they finish serving their jail term, all of their crime records will be erased so they can integrate back to the society. I heard about that during the time someone in Germany sued Wikipedia for their entry (English version) about his past record. It's not legal here.

Edit: here is a link: http://galj.info/2008/09/14

Sun, Sep. 14, 2008

Discretion in Privacy Law

CK - Washington.   The Dr. Bahr Collection publishes a Hamburg ruling of June 6, 2008 in the matter 324 0 1069/07 on the obligation of Internet publishers to suppress the name of a defendant in a criminal matter. Under German privacy and personality laws, a convicted defendant may be entitled to have any mention of a conviction expunged from Internet publications, just as it would be expunged from criminal records after the statutory periods.

In the June decision, the court analyzed the requirements in a situation involving a defendant in a current matter. It found the public interest in reporting on the case and the defendant to prevail over the privacy interest of the defendant. As a result, there is no obligation on online publishers to suppress the name of a defendant or to limit publication of a name to the initials -- at least while the convicted criminal remains in prison.

The constitutional protection of privacy, known as Persönlichkeitsrecht, is protected by art. 1 of the German federal constitution. It may outweigh the public interest in minor criminal cases. Therefore, publishing the full name a person may lead to a civil liability when the person is convicted of parking at an expired meter.

The new decision is in line with a December 18, 2007 ruling in the matter 7 U 77/07 involving the publication of the full name of a murderer after he had completed his prison term. Generally, German courts and media do not publish the full name of defendants, although that is only a tradition and such publication is not prohibited.​

 

Just to add this tid bit into the mix because it has to do with what I said earlier, about how well E. coli can move from person to person.

There are now 5 US cases of the disease.

But only 4 of the cases were from people who were in Germany.

The 5th case is a family member of someone who went to Germany.

Arthur

 

No one is shrugging it off as if it is nothing, Bells. We all want to not have this happen again, regardless of whether it is some person's direct fault.

You want them to be punished, because of the outcomes of their actions.
Old testament justice?
What about other people who performed the same actions, but weren't so unlucky as to cause deaths?
Should they simply shrug off their actions and go on their merry way?

That's what we all want.

 

I've seen you say that at least three or four times - get over it, Pete, that's NOT the case. Perhaps you've totally forgotten that law and order - including the punishment for crime - is very much a solid cornerstone of civilization itself!!

 

how amusing, you 2 are so interested in finding and punishing one farmer (assuming it is one farmer) yet there is a whole industry which kills 1 in 2 who use there products as directed. Are you out trying to get all the workers who work in the tobacco industry sent to jail?

How about all the gun manifacturers for all the acidental shootings? (not to mention the delibrate ones)

How about the alchole industry, the gambling industry, the miners involved in the slaughter of whole villages. These are all whole INDUSTRIES which are responcible for 1000s of deaths, god knows how many permident injuries and the tobaco industry ALONE costs Australia's goverments almost 3 billion just in the costs to the health department

 

33 deaths compared to:

Air and car crashes

And you are quite willing to throw insults over 33 deaths. Read i belive you surported invading Iraq and Afganistan, how many deaths did THAT cause

What is the point of "making an example" for 33 deaths when you reward those who kill MILLIONS

 

Law and order is a necessary cornerstone. Punishment is a useful but often overused tool.

I'm using that phrase to highlight the revenge element of the repercussions you advocate.

Do you deny that there is an element of vengeance in historical and contemporary criminal law, and in your desire for personal repercussions?

 

Read-Only,

Do you consider punishment as corrective action? Do you think it can prevent a similar occurrence?

 

This isn't about religion in ANY form or fashion, so you can just drop that line of non-thinking right now.

From my perspective it's not about revenge either - it's holding guilty parties responsible for their actions. For example, a drunk driver could run off an overpass and flatten his car on the road below WITHOUT causing any damage to anything or anyone else. BUT he would still go to jail for drunken driving - simply because it's against the law. Where can you find any revenge in that??

 

no i think its something that should be delt with AS A SYSTEM bells. Thats what you seem unable to grasp. Prevention of the next one, not throwing blame around for the sake of vengence, that just leads to a scape goat, a sacrificial lamb whos torn limb from limb for the sake of blood lust and nothing is done to stop the next incident.

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?

 

I understand your point. I would say it depends upon whether this is a problem the person has been warned about before as well as its significance.

Heck - We don't even know what the root cause is, much less what the 'punishment' is...

 

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." ?

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).

 

why dont you give them $8,137,454 US
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...2010-Interactive-graphic-of-the-FTSE-350.html

Thats the "punishment" you get for being a part of the delibrate murder of over 5 MILLION people each year


Edit to add: this is the currency conversion i used to change the pounds to $

http://www.x-rates.com/calculator.html

and for anyone interested in the origional total "Chief Executive at British American Tobacco. £4962000"

 

you know thats almost a pound for every person he contributed to killing so i guess whoever was at the heart of this one should get 33 pound as "punishment"

 

That's not my implication.

In that case, you can not.
But if exactly the same action resulted in deaths to others, you would expect greater punishment for the offender, right?

Why?

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?

Wrong.
It's about having the courage to choose the course of action that has the best chance of preventing future incidents.
If that means some people are going to get away with something, that's a price worth paying.

"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?

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.

 

Teach the bastard a lesson, hey?

Sounds a lot like revenge to me.