"That recommendation is truly absurd," said Ken Hodges, an attorney on [Stewart] Parnell's defense team. "We hope the judge will see that Stewart Parnell never meant to hurt anyone. He ate the peanut butter himself. He fed it to his children and to his grandchildren."...
Parnell and his co-defendants were never charged with sickening or killing anybody. Instead prosecutors used the seven-week trial to lay out a paper trail of emails, lab results and billing records to show Parnell's company defrauded customers by using falsified test results to cover up lab screenings that showed batches of peanut butter contained salmonella....
२४ जुलै, २०१५
"Federal court officers have recommended a sentence of life in prison for a peanut company executive convicted of selling salmonella-tainted food..."
"... a move that attorneys on both sides called 'unprecedented' for a food-poisoning case."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२२ टिप्पण्या:
Well, of course he didn't *intend* to poison anyone. That's not the point. The point is whether he acted recklessly or not. Can anyone argue that he didn't?
Sounds fair to me. And I'm the Libertarian Mark.
It was unclear to me: were the positive tests for salmonella known about by the defendant before or after the peanut butter was consumed?
If he knew before then life in prison sounds good to me. If not, then life in prison sounds alright to me.
Instead prosecutors used the seven-week trial
That he chose to fight for his innocence is the aggravating factor here -- he could probably have obtained a plea agreement with a lower recommended sentence. The government needs to get huge sentences against people who choose to go to trial -- otherwise, how will they deter defendants from going to trial?
That said though, the article makes it sound like this is just a sentencing guidelines calculation. Notwithstanding the title of the article:
Prosecutors wrote that court officers "correctly calculated" Parnell's recommended sentence, but stopped short of saying whether they plan to ask the judge to impose a life sentence. A spokeswoman for the Justice Department in Washington, Nicole Navas, declined to comment.
So it remains to be seen whether they are actually pursuing a life sentence. And whether one will be imposed.
If he knew the peanut butter was tainted with salmonella and he sold it anyway wouldn't that be depraved-heart or depraved-indifference murder? Which would seem to warrant life in prison.
Re: Winkleheimer:
If he knew the peanut butter was tainted with salmonella and he sold it anyway wouldn't that be depraved-heart or depraved-indifference murder? Which would seem to warrant life in prison.
Perhaps, but this is a Federal case, I believe. They're not charging him with killing anybody at all:
Parnell and his co-defendants were never charged with sickening or killing anybody. Instead prosecutors used the seven-week trial to lay out a paper trail of emails, lab results and billing records to show Parnell's company defrauded customers by using falsified test results to cover up lab screenings that showed batches of peanut butter contained salmonella.
Let me guess what political party he supports.
I read the article and I really do not understand why he and his co-conspirators weren't charged with man-slaughter at the very least.
They knew the peanut butter was contaminated but sold it anyway.
If they knew there was ground glass or strychnine in candy and handed it out at Halloween they would be charged with murder when someone died. How is this different?
" this is a Federal case, I believe. They're not charging him with killing anybody at all:"
Of course, murder is generally a state matter. I wonder if he is being charged with murder in any state courts.
If he knew that the products he was selling were contaminated with salmonella and didn’t recall them, notify his customers and/or self-report to the authorities than I can’t say that I’m all that upset if he gets a life sentence after over 700 people were poisoned. Those of us who work in the food and medical areas have a particular responsibility to make sure that the products we sell are unadulterated. If this guy was cutting corners and decided to roll the dice, then I hope they throw the book at him.
By "Of course" I mean slap myself in the head and say "duh!"
I'm not aware of all the facts (as usual) but it seems to me that IF the guy knowingly allowed the tainted peanut butter on the market, then of course he should have the book thrown at him. One does not gamble with lives and escape unscathed when the authorities find out.
I'm not adept at using opensecrets.org, so I wasn't able to find out if Stewart Parnell gave money to any political campaigns.
But yeah, knowingly selling tainted food that could (and did) lead to people dying is worth a brutal sentence. I don't know why AA tagged it "unfair sentence," because clearly it's not. And fwiw, I'm a libertarian also.
I am confused. Haven't his lawyers pointed out to the court that the defendant is white?
He should be glad he's not Chinese. Compared to what they'd do to him, life in an American prison is a veritable slap on the wrist.
Likely they didn't charge murder because that is generally a state crime and because it would be next to impossible to show the chain of custody between a bad batch at the peanut plant and some kids who ate some products one of which was a Reese's cup.
On the issue of what the did prove:
Instead prosecutors used the seven-week trial to lay out a paper trail of emails, lab results and billing records to show Parnell's company defrauded customers by using falsified test results to cover up lab screenings that showed batches of peanut butter contained salmonella. The tainted goods were shipped to Kellogg's and other food processors for use in products from snack crackers to pet food.
So the in house lab found Salmonella. They shipped the known contaminated food, with false QA docs saying it was tested and safe. And they did this repeatedly.
Hang the Bastard.
course I feel the same way about Mary Barra and her ignition switches...
I would prefer a system where people police themselves, rather than the government regulating every step along the way.
Supposedly economic self-interest prevents a company from pulling this kind of stuff, but we all know there will be exceptions. In fact so many exceptions that they are not exceptions at all.
So, throw the book at him. Next peanut tycoon will think twice.
I applaud the prosecutor. He is in Jimmy Carter's crony capitalist country running peanut processing plants near Andersonville Prison, Georgia. It's death for the weak all the way down.
The U.S. food and drug regulatory apparat depends to a great extent on honest self-reporting. There are nowhere near enough government inspectors to inspect all that much of it directly.
I'd think harsh sentences would be necessary (and therefore justifiable) in order to make such as system work.
Of course, we could move toward a system of greater direct government oversight, but that would not only be costly it would probably result in more than a few corrupt inspectors.
Skin in the game, Hammurabi: http://www.policyinnovations.org/ideas/innovations/data/000232
A life sentence for prosecution of willful fraud is unfair. A life sentence for prosecution of willful fraud that directly resulted in death would be reasonable.
This fool should have been a banker.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा