Where does the âWho pays the $4.1 million? Not the DEAâ come from? According to the linked article, the only mention says it âcost the agency a $4.1 million settlement.â
i think the point was ⌠taxpayers.
It will hit their budget, but theyâll just seize some more houses/cars from innocent people to make up for it. Not one dime will come out of the paychecks or pension funds of the jackasses who let this happen.
These several will pay for their mistake, sort of. Weâll likely never know exactly how, because itâs a âpersonnel issueâ as soon as any disciplinary action is taken. But thereâs no way in hell theyâre going to take $4.1 million out of their pay.
Likewise, the DEA as a whole isnât going to have to tighten itâs belt in any way. That $4.1 million is simply going to be another line in next yearâs multi-billion dollar budget, the whole of which is funded by taxpayers.
EDIT: To put it in perspective, this is about 0.2% of the DEA budget. For the mean annual household income in the US, this would be about equivalent to a $100 fine.
Everyone who walked by that cell and ignored his cries should be given the same 5-day vacation and quick weight-loss diet.
No matter how appalling the atrocity, no matter what branch of government or law enforcement, no one is ever held accountable.
Yep, that was part of it. Unfortunately one person has to be handed responsibility/liability. Thatâs actually the idea behind why middle managers get paid more. Theyâre responsible for everything done under their watch.
If you read the full article youâll find out that:
âThe inspector general faulted three case agents â one a DEA employee and two assigned to an agency task force â and one supervisor who were responsible for Chongâs safety. It said the supervisor exercised poor judgment and violated DEA policy by assigning two of the agents to process evidence from the cell after Chong was found.â
So, in this case, among all the other faults (and there were several), the supervisor on hand also failed to keep watch over the people being supervised. The boss didnât know what the employees were doing. It wasnât just a case of similarly-leveled employees all failing at cross-checking their task.
So we figure out who was most responsible and put them in the cell. Also, the head of the DEA, whoever that is, gets put in for five days too - so that âmanagementâ gets a little taste as well.
Sure, itâs cruel and unusual, but so is the DEA (also FBI, NSA, and all those types).
Responsibility costs money.
Itâs cheaper to average out the liability.
Thatâs how economics works on these scales.
All law enforcement should be required to carry liability insurance, not âself insuranceâ which is really taxpayer insurance.
Wouldnât it be better to hear âI wish I could help you club that kid, but insurance regulations wonât allow itâ.
Not exactly the same as facing criminal charges like they should. Whoever was in charge of that facility should be facing the brunt for allowing a system nearly guaranteed to cause this sort of nearly-lethal injury.
And yet itâs so infrequently the middle managers who actually get the consequences when real consequences happen. Itâs always some intern or entry level clerk. I donât think the pay goes to middle managers to pre-compensate them for consequences they fail to prevent.
When multiple employees fail, like in this case, then thereâs a clear link to management. People allowing management to not be held accountable is not okay, and as far the liability goes â itâs frequently a part of the job title. For example, âSupervisorâ as in," this person supervises all these others, and is responsible for them." Because supervisorsâ duties frequently include training, they hold the liability of ensuring that the employees are trained correctly, and doing their jobs right.
I agree thatâs how it should be in principle (at least when you have a vertical hierarchy) but in practice, it really doesnât seem to be the case.
âFor the love of God, Montresor!â
âletâ this happen? Itâs not like being handcuffed to a wall in view of people for days is the likely, inevitable, or natural course of things.
Unless the DEA are just another torturous organized crime syndicate⌠then that word makes total sense.
Iâm sure this was their first arrest. Who has standard operating proceedures for detaining people and removing weapons and drugs from their person⌠certainly not the DEA! That would be crazytalk. That would be like the Navy having ships.
I believe ââIn God We Trustââ fits the bill.
The weird thing about this incident is realizing that my company has better systems in place to track 5 year old laptops than the DEA apparently had to track people they arrested.
The supervisorâs poor judgment there was in assigning two DEA agents involved in leaving Chong in the cell the job of investigating how he got left in the cell and what happened to him while he was there. Thatâs not a supervisor not knowing what employees are doing, but a supervisor who knows very well what his employees are going to do.
Iâm not sure about the handcuffs, but Iâm guessing locking people in a cell is pretty natural for the DEA. Iâm also guessing that a lot of people they lock up shout and scream about how they shouldnât be in there and that itâs all just a big mistake, and are consequently ignored.
