Should Politicians Be Held Responsible When Their Mistakes Result in Death?
![Grenfell Tower](https://steemitimages.com/640x0/http://i.imgur.com/CQiPxAe.jpg)
The Grenfell Tower Fire brings up questions of government culpability. (Source: The Guardian)
Introduction
The recent Grenfell Tower disaster has raised the question of who is to blame when buildings are built or (as in this case) modified in an unsafe manner.
In the case of Grenfell it appears that a fire which would have been contained by the original design was able to spread out of control due to later modifications made to the building (specifically the addition of a flammable cladding on the exterior).
These modifications were made to help insulate the 1970s built structure and also to make it look more visually acceptable to the wealthy housing which surrounded it.
In recent days it has come to light that the actual material used is not fire safe and was actually illegal to use in this kind of application.
As a result of these findings there have been tests that have found similar material used in at least 120 other high rise buildings around the country.
There are also fears that many other buildings (including hospitals) may also incorporate similarly hazardous cladding.
If the use of this material was an accident or oversight then it would be bad enough, but the fact that this material has been used in many buildings around the UK seems to suggest something more.
Specifically that local and national government have neglected their responsibility when it comes to enforcing fire safety.
This has got me thinking about an issue that has concerned me for some time - that of the culpability and willingness of politicians to accept responsibility for their actions or lack of them.
Who is to Blame?
One of the points that has been suggested as a cause in this case is a lack of enforcement of building regulations.
Most councils are having difficulty managing.
Inspecting buildings to make sure fire regulations are met is expensive and time consuming.
With all the cuts due to the recent years of austerity councils may have reduced their scrutiny in this area.
The cuts have also meant that most fire services have lost significant numbers of firefighters and other resources, so when a disaster does occur they are less well equipped to deal with it.
As a result we may have ended up in a situation where we have a lot more buildings which are susceptible to serious fires but local fire departments are simultaneously more poorly equipped to deal with them.
I think most of us would agree that if someone uses improper building materials which could result in death or injury they should face some kind of punishment, including prison.
What about the other people who may have contributed to the situation?
They may have not put the material there themselves but they may have created the circumstances which allowed an unscrupulous or negligent builder to get away with it.
Further they may have brought about the circumstances which mean that any fire that does occur is more likely to be serious with greater risk of injury and loss of life.
If an ordinary person is an accomplice to a crime then they don't normally get a free pass on that - they usually have to face some kind of punishment or sanction as well.
Does Government Bear Some Responsibility?
So the question is: Should local and national government also be held accountable?
After all part of why we pay them taxes and grant them certain powers is in exchange for them taking care of these things.
They are supposed to keep us safe.
If they have neglected their duties and that has resulted in deaths should they not be punished the same way as any other person would?
I think it certainly makes sense on both an emotional and rational level but I think it may not be quite that simple.
Governments and Politicians Rarely Get Punished When Their Actions Cause Death
One of the things that is quite noticeable in our society is that when a regular person does something wrong - even if it is not deliberate they can end up getting punished very harshly.
If your actions result in the death of someone (even accidentally) you can end up going to jail for manslaughter.
It seems these same rules don't apply when it comes to politicians. At least they haven't as long as I have been around.
For example, let's say you are a minister who cuts back on the fire provision in a particular region and that results in 1000 more deaths than the previous year.
Should you be held accountable (at least partially) for those deaths?
After all, if you hadn't made those cuts those people may still be alive:
There Are Different Sides To The Argument
It is a difficult question to answer.
One side of the argument might be that in order for politicians to work more effectively and efficiently they can't worry about being prosecuted for their actions.
I suppose this might be a more appropriate argument when it comes to decisions in wartime (a special case).
I'm not sure it is as applicable in peacetime where there isn't the same time pressure.
A further argument might be that it can also be difficult to prove that a certain specific person's actions directly caused the deaths.
How do you assess the degree of culpability or blame?
It is pretty clear that the builder who used the incorrect cladding bears most of the responsibility, how much responsibility does the councillor who cancelled building inspections bear?
I think we run into a fundamental issue of quantifying blame and culpability.
That said this is exactly the kind of thing that the courts and the legal system are designed to figure out so it is not something that doesn't already happen and couldn't be done.
It also doesn't seem right that a politician who acts recklessly and ignores safety advice should escape from any kind of punishment (besides being demoted or sacked).
Losing your ministerial position or place in the council does not seem to be a proportionate punishment for being responsible for people dying.
These sackings are rarely permanent anyway - you tend to see the same people being recycled in government even after big mistakes and it seems that when they come back all previous mistakes are forgotten.
We need to have a situation where people take their responsibilities to public safety seriously.
At least part of that is making sure that the punishments are commensurate with the results of failure particularly when it could mean people dying or being seriously injured.
Without that we will continue to see the same kind of irresponsible actions happening over and over again.
Perhaps some kind of life ban on taking any kind of political office when something like this happens would at least help?
That way they couldn't come back and behave similarly recklessly again.
Conclusion
It seems that as a result of the Grenfell fire, there is going to be a "major national investigation" (the words of the Prime Minister) in to the use of cladding on buildings across the country.
We will have to wait and see if it results in any prosecutions.
Whatever happens I doubt we will see any responsibility being accepted by local or national politicians.
Sadly as a result of that I think we will have similar situations occurring again.
Perhaps in relation to other areas of public safety, but the cost could potentially be just as high.
It is just another one of the long list of issues which makes people increasingly mistrustful of politicians.
What do you think?
think they responsible for every decision that they've made. At least they should be banned to be a politician for life
That would disqualify a helluva lot of politicians. :) They are an incompetent lot.
At least the next one would learn so he wont lose his position. 😁
Maybe. Not a sure thing!
Yes that would at least be something.
At least 😁
I was listening on bbc1 that several places failed to pass the fire tests....
Yes. It seems to be endemic.
We need much more control and honesty.
Yes but I doubt we will get it.
u did a great thing.. going out Europe. You have so much shit to care about that you can't be controlled by Europe too.
I wish Italy will follow UK and will leave Europe and will become the powerful country we were before 2002. At part this I wish May will actually do everything she said in TV about us (foreigners). Lets build up a better world!
I think the future of the EU is limited - globalism basically means it doesn't really give any advantage anyway.
agreed 100%
I think they definitely should be held accountable. If they can not make the right decision they should not be leading us.
Yes. Thing is they get sacked which means they basically take a rest for a few months and then come back in the next reshuffle.
yeah the problem is the profit for the rich is more important than the lives of the working class. As long as somebody does it, they are expendable.
Sadly I think you are right. Money is often more important than lives (especially of the poor).
if only there was a system where everybody is equal and free.......
oh wait.....
Yep. And they get a generous pension out of it.
That and kushy jobs on company boards where they get hundreds of thousands for a few hours work every year.
Yep. It's a joke. And we are the butt of the joke.
They could care less about us.
I agree They definitely should be held responsible for putting lives in danger just for money, its disgusting. there was one lady from the Council who tried to stand up for the people/ change the cladding , she almost lost her job.
Politicians should be held responsible legally for these kind of fatal screwups. But since politicians would need to write new laws to make this happen--and because politicians are adept at self-dealing--this will never happen.
I fear you are right.
"For example, let's say you are a minister who cuts back on the fire provision in a particular region and that results in 1000 more deaths than the previous year.
Should you be held accountable (at least partially) for those deaths?"
Absolutely yes, always asking me, how people (especially politicians) responsible for major mistakes can sleep well.
Just think about this: if a non politician would've made that decision everyone would sue him for everything he posseses+more..
Great point. When lives are on the line you better be damn thorough when it comes to your job... politicians seem to be the opposite of thorough though.
Yes you are right.
Lets be honest local politicians and councilors don't really know much about there chosen field, as a whole people who work in or for the council are there through nepotism this is my experience here in Bristol... How many times have you ever met anyone who works or knows somone who works for the council that you think wow thats a clever person or they really know what there talking about??? again my own experience here is minimal... So its hard to blame these people as they are more than likley being taken for a ride by some cowboy firm wanting to make a quick buck... Id say lets go after whoever supplied and fitted that cladding as they should have known!!
It's possible but if they cut back on people that did know about such things then they are responsible.
good point but cutbacks usually come from the top, and people are under pressure at local level to spend what they can however they can
@tfx96 i agree, the burden of responsibility should lie mostly with the 'professional' contractor, builder etc, who ought to know better.
I remember watching the news and thinking why went the fire fighters doing more to get the people out, it was very bizarre to see that people were screening out their windows and there was no effort to get them out somehow, they were clearly ill equipted and had little knowledge of how to deal with high rise building fires.
There is no getting them out of that situation, unfortunately. Some inventor needs to invent a parachute that works at such a low height. Not easy to do, as no one has invented it yet.
Yes I think the firefighters were shocked themselves and didn't know what to do.
If the building was constructed properly, the fire would not have spread how it did, the firefighters were presented with a sutuation which should never occur, and for which they therefore have not trained.
We have different religion, different culture, different skin tones, languages but all the politicians are the same around the globe.
So true. Parasites.
Yet we are left with no other option than trusting them.
May another Mr. Nakamoto comes up with a theory of decentralized social system.
I think creating a lot of competing interests is the way to go so that politicians don't run wild. It worked well until FDR came along and created an inbalance.
Perhaps we are using it right now.
We definitely can not deny the power of social networking but a socio political restructure is becoming necessary for the better future
The thing is that with the way societies are structured, being a politician is one of the ugliest jobs you can have.
That's why almost no sincere and honest person would choose it. But I'm an optimist and think that there must be some who are like that...
It's good to be an optimist Rumen! But a theory which says "whoever visits hell becomes a devil."
Well that may be so, or maybe if you invest yourself enough you can change hell to heaven(I'm not into religion haha).
Btw... Even I'm not into religion... Rather a self proclaimed atheist
Nice thought but technically this can denied if we go by the laws (+)+(-)=- :P
hmm
(+)-(-) = (+) ? ;)
Lol it would seem so.
What happens is that the vast majority of politicians only seek their own interests and always evade their own responsibilities to the detriment of the population
True.
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
however I don"t think it will ever happen