Insufficient workplace safety is a form of murder

[Risottia]

http://www.ansa.it/web/notizie/collecti ... 98509.html
http://it.euronews.net/2011/04/16/rogo- ... a-storica/
(in Italian)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThyssenKrupp#Deaths
http://www.euronews.net/2011/04/16/ital ... -decision/
(in English)

The Turin courts has sentenced guilty of all charges mr.Espenhahn (CEO of ThyssenKrupp Italy) and the members of the administration board in relation to the 2007 flash fire in the local ThyssenKrupp steelworks that killed 7 workers.
The ruling is groundbreaking because, while the ad board members have been sentenced to 13 years and a half in jail on multiple charges of manslaughter, the CEO has been sentenced to 16 years and a half for "omicidio volontario con dolo eventuale" (amongst other charges), which can be translated as "murder through eventual malice"; basically, the court ruled that the CEO knew pretty well that, by making people work in a workplace that didn't meet the legal safety requirements, he jeopardized their lives, and that deliberately lessening safety standards constitutes murder (not just manslaughter) if death ensues.

So, what does NSG think? Good sentence? Too harsh, not harsh enough? Moreover, do you think that it should be considered murder or just manslaughter? How do you think a similar case would be ruled in your country? Is this going to pave the way for a new course in workplace incidents trials, in Italy and abroad? Does your country's laws even recognize a "murder through eventual malice"? Would you apply "murder through eventual malice" to other criminal behaviours - like, let's say, death of a pedestrian in a car crash caused by DUI?

[Bitchkitten]

Not sure, but I think I kinda like the ruling. Big companies are frequently quite willing to jeopardize worker safety in order to save a few bucks. They might think twice if it actually means the guys in charge are going to see prison time, instaed of a fine that doesn't even come out of their pockets.

[Risottia]

... instaed of a fine that doesn't even come out of their pockets.

...btw: the CEO's also been fined 1 M€, ThyssenKrupp has been fined 800 k€ (and a six-months ban from advertising), and that was just the criminal trial. The civil trial for the actual refunds to the victims' families has yet to begin (in Italy you have to wait for the first-degree criminal sentence).

[Maurepas]

Not sure, but I think I kinda like the ruling. Big companies are frequently quite willing to jeopardize worker safety in order to save a few bucks. They might think twice if it actually means the guys in charge are going to see prison time, instaed of a fine that doesn't even come out of their pockets.

If corporations are people, why should they not be tried for murder as people? I think the US needs to adopt this position.

[Meowfoundland]

This ruling makes a lot of sense. It's like the company was negligent on purpose, yes?

[Risottia]

If corporations are people, why should they not be tried for murder as people?

Idk in the US, but I'm fairly sure that in Italy legal persons (as opposed to physical persons) are treated differently by the law - so corporate persons can be sentenced to refunds and fines - but, of course, they can't be physically jailed - ; it's the actual physical persons who take the decisions (like the CEO) who carry the whole criminal responsibility.

[Maurepas]

If corporations are people, why should they not be tried for murder as people?

Idk in the US, but I'm fairly sure that in Italy legal persons (as opposed to physical persons) are treated differently by the law - so corporate persons can be sentenced to refunds and fines - but, of course, they can't be physically jailed - ; it's the actual physical persons who take the decisions (like the CEO) who carry the whole criminal responsibility.

I'm no lawyer, but I'd be willing to bet our CEOs can't hold criminal responsibility for this sort of thing.

[Risottia]

This ruling makes a lot of sense. It's like the company was negligent on purpose, yes?

Yes, that's the point. They chose not to maintain the safety systems because that factory was bound to be transferred to another place in some months - so they thought it was a good idea to save money at the risk of the workers' lives.

[The Parkus Empire]

Would selling unsafe cars also be murder?

[Risottia]

Idk in the US, but I'm fairly sure that in Italy legal persons (as opposed to physical persons) are treated differently by the law - so corporate persons can be sentenced to refunds and fines - but, of course, they can't be physically jailed - ; it's the actual physical persons who take the decisions (like the CEO) who carry the whole criminal responsibility.

I'm no lawyer, but I'd be willing to bet our CEOs can't hold criminal responsibility for this sort of thing.

So, how do you guess a similar case would be ruled if it happened (Ephaistos forbid) in your city?

[Meowfoundland]

Would selling unsafe cars to customers also be murder?

If the company selling the cars knew they were unsafe and didn't tell the customers, then I would hope so.

[The Parkus Empire]

I'm no lawyer, but I'd be willing to bet our CEOs can't hold criminal responsibility for this sort of thing.

So, how do you guess a similar case would be ruled if it happened (Ephaistos forbid) in your city?

The company gets sued, maybe. I'd think.

[Selothey]

Good Job!

I Like it very much... but you know it will eventually come to rising prices because of this... they know how to turn even the worst situation into a money making scheme...

[The Parkus Empire]

Would selling unsafe cars to customers also be murder?

If the company selling the cars knew they were unsafe and didn't tell the customers, then I would hope so.

Well we know it sure as hell wouldn't be in the U.S.

[Maurepas]

So, how do you guess a similar case would be ruled if it happened (Ephaistos forbid) in your city?

The company gets sued, maybe. I'd think.

Yeah, and a court would decide whether the company has to pay damages. Usually pocket change is settled out of court and the CEO never loses anything. He probably got a bonus for saving more money than the settlement cost.

[Risottia]

Would selling unsafe cars to customers also be murder?

I don't know for sure, but I would assume that, if the car was KNOWN by the CEO to be lacking the legal safety requirements, and sold to a customer who eventually died because of the lack of safety - yes, murder through eventual malice would apply.

[Maurepas]

Would selling unsafe cars to customers also be murder?

I don't know for sure, but I would assume that, if the car was KNOWN by the CEO to be lacking the legal safety requirements, and sold to a customer who eventually died because of the lack of safety - yes, murder through eventual malice would apply.

If this is the sort of policy Berlusconi believes in, I think the US should take him off your hands,

[The Parkus Empire]

The company gets sued, maybe. I'd think.

Yeah, and a court would decide whether the company has to pay damages. Usually pocket change is settled out of court and the CEO never loses anything. He probably got a bonus for saving more money than the settlement cost.

Obviously the problem here is restriction of the market. A totally free market would correct all of this.

[Risottia]

I don't know for sure, but I would assume that, if the car was KNOWN by the CEO to be lacking the legal safety requirements, and sold to a customer who eventually died because of the lack of safety - yes, murder through eventual malice would apply.

If this is the sort of policy Berlusconi believes in, I think the US should take him off your hands,

I somewhat doubt of the part I've bolded... but fortunately there's a strong separation of powers between prosecutors, judges and executive power here (although Silvio's been trying for years to put the prosecutors under direct Ministry authority).

But if ANYONE wants to take Berlusconi away from here, I'd be happy to welcome him as my new overlord.

[The Parkus Empire]

Would selling unsafe cars to customers also be murder?

I don't know for sure, but I would assume that, if the car was KNOWN by the CEO to be lacking the legal safety requirements, and sold to a customer who eventually died because of the lack of safety - yes, murder through eventual malice would apply.

That type of thing happens here on a regular basis. It's just considered a normal business tactic.

[Maurepas]

I don't know for sure, but I would assume that, if the car was KNOWN by the CEO to be lacking the legal safety requirements, and sold to a customer who eventually died because of the lack of safety - yes, murder through eventual malice would apply.

That type of thing happens here on a regular basis. It's just considered a normal business tactic.

That's just depressing. Things that I'll get all pissed off about because they're so hard to obtain in the US...and Italians are just like, "Of course, why would you think otherwise?" >_>

[Risottia]

I don't know for sure, but I would assume that, if the car was KNOWN by the CEO to be lacking the legal safety requirements, and sold to a customer who eventually died because of the lack of safety - yes, murder through eventual malice would apply.

That type of thing happens here on a regular basis. It's just considered a normal business tactic.

In Italy (and iirc in the whole Europe) cars have to be tested by a special governmental office before being allowed to run on roads.

[Call to power]

for "omicidio volontario con dolo eventuale" (amongst other charges), which can be translated as "murder through eventual malice"

this law hasn't translated well, Malice implies an intention to do harm. Silly Civil law types making the law up as they go along

Good sentence?

I worry it may open up more cases in this regard (as you have mentioned) and I don't feel it does justice to the idea that they deliberately planned to murder the employees so much as being criminally negligent

I would argue it deeper but my knowledge of Italian law is awful

How do you think a similar case would be ruled in your country?

it would be manslaughter here but I think more of the blame would land on the shoulders of the health and safety guy

Does your country's laws even recognize a "murder through eventual malice"?

yes and I would imagine most common law states will as well given the Year and a day rule

Not sure, but I think I kinda like the ruling. Big companies are frequently quite willing to jeopardize worker safety in order to save a few bucks. They might think twice if it actually means the guys in charge are going to see prison time, instaed of a fine that doesn't even come out of their pockets.

well lets say you did some dodgy electrics in your pad and someone gets electrocuted even though you never actually planned to kill them

If corporations are people

their not

[Maurepas]

If corporations are people

their not

They are in our country, which was the point of that post. It's ridiculously stupid, to the point of being almost insulting, but they are,

[Risottia]

for "omicidio volontario con dolo eventuale" (amongst other charges), which can be translated as "murder through eventual malice"

this law hasn't translated well, Malice implies an intention to do harm.

Yeah. "Dolo" means exactly that, but in the form "dolo eventuale" it takes the meaning (I'm not an expert in legal language though) of "deliberate intention to risk eventual harm/death".

given the Year and a day rule

What's that?

If corporations are people

their not

In Italy they are legal persons hence subject to laws and carriers of rights. Not necessarily to the same extent of a physical person.
I know that in the US the issue is still debated, but court rulings would suggest they are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personhood#Law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
Proponents of corporate personhood believe that corporations, as associations of shareholders, were intended by the founders and framers to enjoy many, if not all, of the same rights as would the shareholders acting individually, such as the right to lobby the government, the right to due process and compensation before being deprived of property, and the right, as legal entities, to speak freely. All of these rights have been upheld by the U.S. courts.