Accidents vs. crashes - shifting perspective for systemic solutions

Bloomberg published a fascinating interview with Jessie Singer about her new book, There Are No Accidents, which chronicles the trend (encouraged by companies) of treating deaths from car crashes, overdose, unintentional shootings and so on as “accidents,” caused by individual error, which we sometimes punish ferociously if the harm is large, rather than the results of systemic failures that can be influenced and improved by government. Singer writes, “Accidents happen when errors occur under dangerous conditions, but you can create conditions that anticipate errors and make those mistakes less of a life-or-death equation.” In the following exchange, Singer makes trenchant comments on the difference between consequences and punishment and whether our policies should be oriented towards preventing harm in the future. This strikes at the heart of what must change in order to reorient our criminal legal system in order to save lives and reduce harm in the future: 

Is the idea of searching for the cause of an accident so fundamentally misguided that we should never do it?

I think the key is understanding that the cause of accidents is layered. Causal events are not singular. If you come up with a single cause, and it’s the last thing in line before someone got hurt, then yeah — that’s totally useless toward prevention.

Still, there is something inherently appealing about assigning blame. If I own a gun and put it in my nightstand loaded and unlocked, and a child accesses it and shoots himself, shouldn’t I be held responsible?

I think an important distinction to make is the difference between consequences and punishment. Consequences are a way to take responsibility. Punishment is retributive; the goal is inflicting suffering and pain rather than learning a lesson.

I would say yes, punishment is intuitively appealing. You’re in pain, and you feel this story about a child being shot, and you want to inflict pain in response. Punishment is very psychologically satisfying — but it’s totally ineffective in reducing harm.

So what should happen in that example of a child accidentally shooting himself?

We should create regulations that prevent such things from occurring. Do you know where accidental shootings happen less? In places with stricter gun laws. If we want to feel better about ourselves, then our answer is to punish the person who kept the gun in an unlocked nightstand. But if our goal is to prevent deaths, then the response is not punishment; it’s protecting people by changing their relationship to these dangerous conditions.

A system of laws and practices that’s truly oriented around safety would ask the question, what actually works to reduce harm? And assign consequences from there. Instead, the vast majority of the criminal legal system is oriented around the idea that handing down punitive justice will also achieve the goal of keeping people safe. That concept is so deeply embedded in the psyche of policy makers, journalists, and many in the public that it continues to shape reality even though it’s completely out of step with the evidence. We all know that evidence and facts aren’t enough to create major social changes, but this awareness can usefully shape the types of campaigns and leadership that we choose to resource.