Why are these people never charged with murder?

[elucidator]

A slightly different take, perhaps?

A tobacco executive and a Colombian cocaine lord.

Which one is bent on corrupting our youth by selling them toxic and addictive substances, in full knowledge of the consequences, causing thousands of avoidable deaths for no other purpose but to grab some money? Which one is evil?

Here’s a hint: one of them is a white guy in a suit.

That should clear it up for you.

[Measure_for_Measure]

*Originally posted by Manda JO *

The difference is he knows of an obvious lethal defect that he has the power to keep from reaching the public and save lives and chooses not to because of costs.

Then every single CEO of a car company (or a ladder company, or many many other companys) is guilty of murder.

EVERY SINGLE CAR HAS KNOWN DEFECTS

Or put another way, every single driver is guilty of murder. Drive a car long enough and someone will die. I suppose the concept of “due diligence” might play a role here, as it allows a semi-explicit consideration of costs.

[rjk]

*Originally posted by Tatjana *
**

*Originally posted by rjk *
"Is this product markedly more dangerous than existing similar products?"

That’s like the old “custom” standard for determining negligence, which is still used for medical malpractice. It would be very bad to use it too broadly. I don’t want the corporations deciding on their own what level of safety is OK. Especially in the case of car companies, which we keep using as our example. There are so few of them that they could easily get together and decide not to take certain safety measures **

I don’t think using that standard too broadly would be a problem; using it too loosely would. I certainly wouldn’t propose letting corporations decide on safety. In flowbark’s post, he mentions “due diligence”, and SPOOFE says “::cough Anti-trust! cough::”. Those factors give the government and the courts quite a bit of power to keep manufacturers in line.