If I were in charge, there would be jail time for a first drunk driving offense, even if nobody got killed. A drunk driver who didn’t kill anybody is just lucky.
^i call that attempted vehicular homicide. (Not a real charge, but should be!)
“And the faulty ignition switch in the GM cars cost over 120 lives. Why are they not in jail?”
– one wrong doesn’t justify another. Yes, the peanut dude deserves jail time. So did GM execs. The fact that they didn’t get it doesn’t mean he shouldn’t.
Anyone who knowingly puts people in harm’s way for benefit of their bottom line should pay the price of the consequences.
I put both the peanut and GM guys in jail.
And I hate to say it, but I hope VW’s reputation, for knowingly programming their equipment to knowingly fake emission results, or whatever it was, is tainted for a long time. Cheaters should not prosper.
“Just ship it,” he said after learning that the peanut butter from his roach- and rat-infested plant was contaminated with salmonella.
He killed nine people and sickened hundreds. The Boston Marathon bomber was put to death and he only killed three people. Why should we be more lenient to people who kill with a fountain pen? We shouldn’t.
Shipping a product that can kill unsuspecting people isn’t much different from shooting them with a gun. The guy knowingly and purposely shipped essentially poisoned peanut butter to consumers and 9 people died. My kid could have eaten it and died. Your kid could have eaten it and died.
Of course he should spend time in jail. How is this even a question?
He deserves to spend the next 28 years in jail. The problem is that he will most likely be out on appeal and it may take many more years before he actually serves the time…
No it’s exactly like it. If he knew and said ship anyway, he’s guilty of murder in my book.
My daughter was one whom was sickened by his product, but came out of it ok. I hope he rots in his cell for the rest of his life.
28 years strikes me as an effective deterrent to others calculating similar risks from a profit standpoint.
In a word, YES. @borghugh- I am sorry about your daughter but glad that your daughter is doing well.
Yes
According to the Wall Street Journal report, the company falsified lab results. They knowingly shipped contaminated products for years. Yes, the sentence is warranted.
We’re still allowed to have an opinion and can have somewhat informed opinions. And who cares? Presumably the reader, else they wouldn’t read it.
Jail time definitely. Next executive will think twice - holding people accountable is a very good deterrent.
Basically, because he didn’t do it for the sake of doing it. What this CEO did was more like a negligent (I’m not using a legal definition here) thing, while terrorists do what they do specifically to kill people. If the CEO could choose, he would have chosen that no one be harmed. If a terrorist can choose, they choose for as many people as possible to be harmed. The CEO could be rehabilitated, the terrorist could not (unless they changed their ideology).
That’s not to excuse this at all. But I don’t think this was as grave a crime as the Boston bombings.
We taxpayers pay to keep people locked up. If the point is just to punish then we’re all being punished. Prison time is to rehabilitate, to deter others, and to actually pass time while someone cannot be out committing crime. We don’t imprison people just because we’re mad at them (or at least we’re not supposed to).
The purpose of punishment is very controversial. Is it to give the guilty a chance to be rehabilitated? Is it to keep the rest of us safe while the guilty person is locked up? Is it revenge? It is to act as a deterrent to others who might think of doing the same thing?
Serious people have argued about this for decades.
Basically, I believe in jailing those who are a danger to society if they are free.
However, in this case I agree with those upthread who point out the deterrent potential. I want the next CEO doing a cost benefit analysis to consider the possible cost , to him or her personally, just too high.