Criminalisation of Accidents

[Bronx]

PBL

if you meant "lack of proper care and attention" short of behavior that might be legally significant, then so be it.

I didn’t make any distinction. Even if there is any real difference, what I said in posts 63 and 69 still applies for the flight safety reasons I gave.

But then there should be little need to worry about criminal prosecution, since ipso facto the behavior falls short of that which might be legally significant.

It ain't ipso facto at all. Lack of proper care and attention might be “legally significant”. Maybe not bad enough for “gross negligence” for manslaughter (post #72) but pilots are at risk of prosecution for other criminal offenses for lack of proper care and attention, even if there’s no accident.
eg We got Part § 91.13 “No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.” They got the same offense in England but they call it something like negligent or reckless endangerment. You don't have to be grossly negligent to get prosecuted.

So, going back to what you said about my post –

So it is with negligence. It is primarily a term with legal meaning. If you decide that you will never determine whether the concept of negligence applies to pilot behavior in accidents, then you are thereby saying that the concept of negligence does not apply to pilot behavior in accidents.

I didn't say negligence is primarily a term with legal meaning, you did and that's wrong so what you say follows from it don't follow.
I don't agree only a prosecution can determine if pilot behavior in accidents was negligent.
I never said pilot behaviour in accidents/these circumstances is not negligent. Of course it can be. Saying pilots shouldn't be prosecuted for being negligent isn't the same as saying pilots are never negligent. The question is whether the criminal process is appropriate or counter-productive. I've said what I think.

I do not take it as a distortion of Bronx's argument but rather as a consequence of it. What Bronx said commits him to the view that pilot behavior in accidents is never negligent. If anyone does not like that conclusion, which I don't, then a rethink of the premises of the argument is in order. It appears from Bronx's reaction that he doesn't like that conclusion either. If so, then he has to modify some of his earlier assertions to escape it.

It’s not a consequence of what I said and it does not commit me to the view that pilot behavior in accidents is never negligent. Of course it can be, whether or not it’s determined by a court.
I agree a rethink of the premises of the argument is in order – your first premise that "negligence is fundamentally a legal concept" was fundamentally wrong. You also said culpability is also a concept primarily of law. That ain’t right either. Culpable means deserving blame like in mea culpa, my fault or my blame. It don’t have to be legal blame.

Anyways, IMHO you’re distracting from the key issue by getting all etymalogical (sp?) about it.
JaG summed the issues up good

If the advancement of safety were the only consideration - the issue of prosecution would never arise. Sometimes that has to be subordinate to considerations of general/specific deterrence, public vindication, punishment...etc.

"Sometimes that has to be subordinate ..."
To be or not to be, that is the question.
Not to be, IMHO.
The criminal and non criminal methods have both got good and bad points but there’s a conflict between the two, so the question is or should be which imperfect method is best for the general good?
I already said what I think and why.


B.