7 ms·
Generally a crime needs mens rea. Not always but generally there needs to be some sort of intent. It is unclear from the article if the violation of the safety
by elmerfud 2y ago
Generally a crime needs mens rea. Not always but generally there needs to be some sort of intent. It is unclear from the article if the violation of the safety practices were intentional or due to ignorance or potentially lack of training on the employer's part. Since the article does mention that policies and procedures have been updated to account for this there may been some deficiencies discovered in their policies.
This is usually sufficient to explain why criminal charges have not been brought. If it was just simple incompetence but they believed they were following procedures to the best of their current knowledge it is unlikely they could get a conviction.
- xkcd1963 2y agoIncompetence is punishable
- toast0 2y agoIncompetence doesn't often give rise to criminal liability, though.
- alistairSH 2y agoSingle physician across two employers. Thousands of people impacted, so the problem spanned years. And he was fired. Sounds like one guy got lazy to the point of maliciousness. But I’ll concede there aren’t enough details in the article to know what happened. I just know if I got a note in my e-file that I might have HIV, I’d be furious. And if I actually had it due to either malice or incompetence, I’d be out for blood.
- jholman 2y ago> Generally there needs to be some sort of intent. Often yes, but often not. Criminal negligence is a thing. That's a standard of mens rea that's lower than intent, or foreknowlege, or recklessness. And it's particularly a thing in the context of licensed professions.