Wednesday, December 04, 2013

Consumers' Responsibility for Harming Themselves, Etc.

by Sherry F. Colb

In my column for this week on Verdict, part 1 of a 2-part series, I begin analyzing the case of Burrage v. United States, which asks under what circumstances a heroin dealer may be held to have caused the death of his customer for purposes of a federal statute attaching an enhanced mandatory minimum sentence when heroin dealing results in death.  The column first explains different types of factual causation, including "but for" causation and "independent sufficient causation."  Under either of these tests, it appears that the defendant in Burrage should have been acquitted.  The column next discusses the issue of proximate cause, the sort of causation that the law considers adequate to justify the attribution of legal responsibility.

Let us assume that a heroin dealer did in fact cause the death of his customer, because his customer would not have died in the absence of the heroin sold to him by the dealer and did in fact die because he ingested that heroin.  Should the dealer, without more, be held criminally accountable for that death? Part 2 of the series will delve into that question.

Meanwhile, as Professor Dorf noted on this blog, yesterday Cornell Law School hosted a panel discussion on my book, Mind If I Order the Cheeseburger? And Other Questions People Ask Vegans. Although the topic may seem far afield, a chapter in the book does bear on the question in the Burrage case. The chapter is called: "Aren't the Animals Dead Already Anyway?."  Some people agree that it is morally indefensible for people who have other choices to slaughter a living being to turn him or her into a food product but, they say, it is the one who kills the animal -- not the consumer -- who bears moral responsibility for this indefensible conduct. After all, by the time the consumer purchases and eats an animal's flesh, the animal in question is already dead and thus can no longer be harmed by anything the consumer does.

In response to this question/argument, my chapter discusses the nature of supply and demand in a market economy as well as the distinction, if any, between concrete and visible harms (to a known and determinate victim), one the one hand, and abstract and invisible harms (to an unknown and future victim), on the other.  I explain how, more than any vote you might cast as a citizen, the repeated votes you cast as a consumer (or a non-consumer) carry tremendous power.  They either encourage the producer to kill more animals, with the promise of money, or they refuse to provide compensation to farmers and other animal-product "dealers" for the slaughter and torture of living beings.  The purchase of cheese pizza today condemns a mother dairy cow and her infant son to suffering and death tomorrow.  Consumers are accordingly active accomplices in the violence that farmed animals endure, soliciting the violence through their purchases.

Likewise, consumers may bear substantial responsibility when a product causes harm to the consumers themselves, including the harm of premature death.  In the absence of a profound disability that diminishes the moral agency of a consumer (and in the absence of fraudulent representations by the seller), the consumer partners with the producer to bring about whatever harm results from the purchased product, whether that harm be an overdose, in the case of heroin, or premature death from heart disease, diabetes or any of the other illnesses to which a diet based on animal products contributes.

Does any of this mean that I think producers should be able to freely externalize the costs of their business? No.  If you produce a harmful product, then you ought to share in shouldering the inevitable costs that result from the creation and use of that product.  Such sharing might be accomplished by taxing (or fining) businesses that sell products at what are currently artificially low prices (such as flesh and dairy, as you can see in David Robinson Simon's recent book, Meatonomics). It is easy to ridicule the plaintiffs in lawsuits against McDonald's for "making people fat," but the imperative of cost-internalization provides good grounds for resisting a legal regime in which a plaintiff's supposed assumption of risk provides producers and sellers with a complete defense against civil liability.

But imposing prison terms is another matter.  If your victim is a willing participant in his own death, because he knowingly purchased a harmful product from you and then ate that product three times a day for years (or voluntarily injected that product into his veins), then I think it is both insulting to him and unfair to you to criminally punish you with a prison sentence for what you (and he together) did to him.

6 comments:

The Dismal Political Economist said...

I would disagree with Ms. Colb’s conclusion

“But imposing prison terms is another matter. If your victim is a willing participant in his own death, because he knowingly purchased a harmful product from you and then ate that product three times a day for years (or voluntarily injected that product into his veins), then I think it is both insulting to him and unfair to you to criminally punish you with a prison sentence for what you (and he together) did to him.”

and differentiate between a producer selling a product that is legal and a producer selling a product that is illegal. I believe she is correct that the external (as of yet but soon to be realized) costs associated with selling a legal product should be borne and shared by producer and consumer alike, most likely in the form of a tax to capture the true cost of the product. And I would agree that criminally punishing the producer/seller of a legal product is wrong.

But the seller of an illegal product such as heroin or other drugs should absolutely be subject to criminal penalties in the event the customer suffers death from consuming the product. The seller of the illegal product is not an innocent bystander, he or she is not simply engaging in legal commerce but is supplying the market place with a product that is not legally allowed because of the known destructive attributes of that product. If the customer dies as a result of purchasing the illegal product, a jail sentence (and a long one) for the seller for partially causing of death of their customer seems to me to be entirely appropriate.

An illustration of this principle is with the sale of firearms. A person who legally sells a gun that is ultimately used in a crime should not be criminally liable with respect to that crime. However a person who illegally sells a gun that is ultimately used in a crime should be criminally liable with respect to that crime. The distinction between legal and illegal commerce and criminal liability is an important one in terms of the seller and one I think Ms. Colb should make.

pvineman1 said...

Prof. Colb, in your opinion, who decides if a consumer product is "harmful"? The government? A panel of doctors? A majority of voters? Mayor Bloomberg?

BTW, do you believe that by mandating coverage for pre-existing conditions (many of which are caused by voluntary lifestyle choices regarding "harmful" products) the ACA is externalizing the huge cost to responsible people who lead a "healthy" lifestyle? And, if so, how do you feel about this cost-shifting?

Funny Games said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Funny Games said...

I believe she is correct that the external (as of yet but soon to be realized) costs associated with selling a legal product should be borne and shared by producer and consumer alike,FIFA 14 Coins | Elo Boost
most likely in the form of a tax to capture the true cost of the product. And I would agree that criminally punishing the producer/seller of a legal product is wrong.

奇堡比 said...

筆跡鑑定
挽回婚姻
老公偷腥
男人外遇
丈夫外遇
婚姻諮詢
感情諮詢
挽回感情
老婆偷腥
工商徵信
商標侵權
市場調查
財務顧問
法律問題
徵信相關
專利侵權
專業偵探
工商調查
優良徵信
外遇蒐證
討債公司
外遇徵信
外遇調查
婚前調查
老公外遇
太太外遇

奇堡比 said...

新女性徵信
外遇調查站
鴻海徵信
亞洲徵信
非凡徵信社
鳳凰徵信社
中華新女性徵信社
全國新女性徵信社
全省女人徵信有限公司
私家偵探超優網
女人感情會館-婚姻感情挽回徵信
女子偵探徵信網
女子國際徵信
外遇抓姦偵探社
女子徵信社
女人國際徵信
女子徵信社
台中縣徵信商業同業公會
成功科技器材
女人國際徵信社
女人國際徵信
三立徵信社-外遇
女人國際徵信
女人國際徵信
大同女人徵信聯盟
晚晴徵信