3 ms·
> punish people who make conscious decisions to harm their fellow humans, but many tragedies don't fit this simple narrative. Causing death of 350 people due t
by acqq 8y ago
> punish people who make conscious decisions to harm their fellow humans, but many tragedies don't fit this simple narrative.
Causing death of 350 people due to "intended" ("it's good for our business") negligence is enough to deserve an evaluation of the decisions made and the evaluation if the punishment is warranted (including the "jail time"). Especially the Boeing's top executives behavior after the first crash can't be defended, given everything we already know.
- KMag 8y agoI'm all for an investigation. I'm very much against public calls for jail time before we've been able to properly investigate the actions and intentions of the parties involved. The OP's stated justification for jail time is "[purely technical description of system functioning] ... if this is true, I sincerely hope [people are jailed]". My basic point is that when ther's a tragedy, there's a knee-jerk reaction to punish people regardless of mens rea. Putting pressure on courts for predetermined outcomes, particularly without regard to intent of the accused, is the slightly civilized version of getting out the torches and pitchforks. Deterrence requires interrupting the ill-intentioned thought process. If there are no ill intentions, then jail time has no deterrent effect. We may feel better if someone is punished, but if the public's feelings are the only positive outcome of punishing someone, then punishing them is barbaric. (Note that restitution is separate from punishment. Restitution, if possible, is still called for if there's no ill intent.)