tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post9218926230906726386..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Risk and blameUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-26326071700688557362012-11-10T09:21:45.051-05:002012-11-10T09:21:45.051-05:00Regarding the lack of accountability, a recent fed...Regarding the lack of accountability, a recent federal appeals court decision has found that:<br /><br />"two American citizens cannot sue former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld over allegations that they were tortured by the U.S. military in Iraq...".<br /><br />This decision creates "...immunity for all members of the military, in violation of Supreme Court precedent".<br /><br />"This new absolute immunity applies not only to former Secretary Rumsfeld but to all members of the military, including those who were literally hands-on in torturing these plaintiffs...". <br /><br />The victims were American citizens, not in the military, tortured because they made allegation of corruption, who now <br />have no recourse against those who tortured them.<br /><br />This type of decision is much more common that Ian's earthquake court case. <br /><br />See http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/07/us-usa-court-rumsfeld-idUSBRE8A62DJ20121107Tom D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16005219519644708237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-48623666598234036002012-11-06T11:29:02.438-05:002012-11-06T11:29:02.438-05:00I'm a lawyer, and I suppose I should delight i...I'm a lawyer, and I suppose I should delight in litigation's increase. But the errors of government and its representatives, when actionable, if not covered by insurance will be paid from public funds. Holding public or private employees individually liable for negligence in the course of their employment (instead of their employers, as is now the case) would require too great a change in the law in any event, so this discussion is largely academic.ciceronianushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10134836668562326081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-52161142421737119382012-11-05T19:38:23.118-05:002012-11-05T19:38:23.118-05:00@Ciceronianus:
Ian presents this as the dilemma:...@Ciceronianus: <br /><br />Ian presents this as the dilemma: hold people accountable, and no one will dare say anything.<br /><br />I don't think it's as bad as that. I think there is a happy medium between allowing people to get off Scott-free for being irresponsible, and severely punishing some poor soul for being unable to predict the future. The "reasonable man rule" should be used to differentiate between an honest mistake that anyone could have made. . . and sheer incompetence. <br /><br />It's not is if we have to go knocking on everyone's door begging someone to take over a position of power and privilege in government. People flock to these jobs -- we can afford to be demanding. I think it is a GOOD thing for public officials to be a little worried about possible criminal and civil penalties. <br /><br />Recent history has shown that lack of accountability is the larger problem.<br />Tom D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16005219519644708237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-37802671229889334542012-11-05T16:04:22.883-05:002012-11-05T16:04:22.883-05:00Experts will not merely be careful to cover their ...Experts will not merely be careful to cover their asses. They will decline to render an opinion. Who would do so at the risk of criminal (and presumably civil) liability? Why agree to be a "public advisor" in such circumstances? You will be punished if you're wrong and receive no reward if you're right. This approach is an effective way of assuring that no sensible person will become involved in government.ciceronianushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10134836668562326081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-7130223108256631352012-11-05T11:43:59.794-05:002012-11-05T11:43:59.794-05:00I have to disagree. I think the current problem i...I have to disagree. I think the current problem is too little accountability. <br /><br />This courtroom case is the exception, not the rule. <br /><br />"Nature" reports that:<br />"Bernardo De Bernardinis, then deputy director of the Civil Protection Department, said, 'the scientific community tells me there is no danger because there is an ongoing discharge of energy'. Most seismologists, including several of the indicted, consider this statement to be scientifically incorrect."<br /><br />Now, saying "there is no danger" is a far cry from "cognitive problems with the audience" regarding probability. Saying "there is no danger" is not "misleading" -- it is dead wrong (as subsequent events graphically illustrated).<br />It is also unscientific. <br /><br />Your point about Type I error is well taken. But, if false negatives represent the "Scylla" and false positives represent the "Charybdis", I think we can move away from "Scylla" without falling into "Charybdis". We can find a happy medium.<br /><br />I agree that the punishment in this case is too extreme, but generally speaking, I would like to see more accountability and more consequences for public officials who screw up. <br />Tom D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16005219519644708237noreply@blogger.com