Suspended Course Director

[Diver Dennis]

Good point fisher. Frankly, releasing information about such an incident is leaving yourself open to possible action by the employee, justified or not.

 

[leapfrog]

Reason for imposing Sanctions:

1. Incapacitate the offender from harming anyone else during the time of his suspensions.
2. Rehabilitate the offender to enable him to change his future behavior so as to avoid harming others.
3. Impose retribution for wrongdoing.
4. Deter the offender and others from engaging in the prohibited conduct in the future.

 

[fisherdvm]

Reason for imposing Sanctions:

1. Incapacitate the offender from harming anyone else during the time of his suspensions.
2. Rehabilitate the offender to enable him to change his future behavior so as to avoid harming others.
3. Impose retribution for wrongdoing.
4. Deter the offender and others from engaging in the prohibited conduct in the future.

Is that a direct quote from the Taliban training manual? What about waterboarding?

 

[Colliam7]

Part of any punitive measure against an individual by any judicial or regulatory authority involves full disclosure of the nature of the offence to the general public or to those who are also governed by such a regulatory authority so that others do not commit the same such offence in the future.

I don't believe that PADI qualifies as a 'judicial or regulatory authority' in the context of the application of this principle.

Is that a direct quote from the Taliban training manual? What about waterboarding?

What leapfrog has put forward is not an extremist view in any sense. These considerations are part of the general legal approach to the concept of punishment, and sanctions are punishments. While these principles may also be included in the Taliban training manual, they are more likely to be found in many 'mainstream' legal texts. Where I might disagree is in the inevitability of public disclosure of the details of the behavior being sanctioned, or the sanctions being imposed. Yes, a purpose of a certifying agency imposing sanctions aganist a member may include deterence of others from enaging in the same behavior, and therefore the behavior should be publicly dislcosed if the sanctions are to have maximum effect. Where the primary purpose is to deter the individual offender, that disclosure is not necessarily warranted. Put another way, PADI is not required to disclose the details of the violation / offense, or the sanction. The point is now probably moot, as the individual has indicated he resigned from PADI.

 

[fisherdvm]

He, he, he.... What I meant is the "incapacitate the offender" sentence. The taliban is known to cut off the hands of thiefs...

But the way how the american system works involves alot of plea bargaining, appeals, burden of proof, and more. The steps PADI and Eric took might be somewhere between plea bargaining and in the appeal process. We'll never know what the agreement is between the two. Just remember, OJ was acquitted of murder.

In the Taliban world, it is alot simpler. That's why I am making light of it.

 

[leapfrog]

Is that a direct quote from the Taliban training manual? What about waterboarding?

I think you should be careful about whom you infer is a Taliban. Pretty sure you have never seen one face to face.

As far as waterboarding, I doubt you even know what it is and you sure haven't experienced it.

As was very clearly enunciated by Colliam 7, I was just putting forward the undersytanding of the rationale behind sanctions in free democratic countries like the US and many others where the Rule of Law is in place.

Of course there will always be cowboys who think that they can take half a phrase and hit you back iwth it. What I actually said was:

Incapacitate the offender from harming anyone else during the time of his suspensions.

I sure hope we are on the same page now.

Just another running day.

 

[fisherdvm]

No, I've never met a Taliban face to face. I just feel that your logics is too black and white in this case, and it reminds me of the religious laws of the Taliban.

When we fervently work to protect our rights, our well meaning government might have overstepped individual's rights by allowing questionable techniques, such as waterboarding, sleep deprivation, exposure to extreme of temperatures to individuals who might be completely innocent. In which case, we are not much better than the Taliban.

In using these simple analogies, I am just suggesting that your logical explanation of how sanctions should work might not be as workable in this case, or in other cases.

All I know is, it took US Army and myself over 3 years to try to fire an individual; but we couldn't. Individual's rights are protected so well by our constitution that a simplistic approach like yours likely will not work in real life. As I recall, 2 years after leaving the service, their lawyer begged me to return to help them in the can of worm they opened, and I refused.

And I am not a lawyer.... simply someone who has sat through many depositions, court hearings, and review thousands of pages of documents in a very broken legal system that protects the criminal more than it protect the victims.

I remember the thousands of pages of interviews, "confidential" questionings of witnesses, and countless hours of my own documentation to build up a case against an individual. All I know is, before I left the service, an agreement was made where all of the documentations were shredded. The army simply found that it was better to setter out of court, and called the case close; and allow a very bad employee to retain his post.

The case continued to fester after I left the service, and the army, in its infinite wisdom, tried to reopen the case again. They begged me to return and testify for them, and I refused.

All I know is, individual's right to due process; individual's right to face the accuser; and individual's right to appeal - somehow supercede the public's right to be protected from criminals.

You might be jumping the gun a little by suggesting that PADI has proven its case, or that Eric has had his fair day in court - before being labeled as you have indicated earlier.

 

[leapfrog]

All I know is, it took US Army and myself over 3 years to try to fire an individual; but we couldn't.

Well, the Green Machine will have its problems.
Again, if you confuse the Rule of Law with Tailibanism, well....

 

[fisherdvm]

I have been informed (truthfully or not) that the suspension was related to people who were not qualified as IDC Staff Instructors, but who were OWSI or MSDT, teaching the IDC. Once again, waiting for the official spokesperson from the certifying agency to make a statement......

Rumors like these, correct or not, are harmful to individuals. Unless you have a name to write down, it simply is a rumor. And it is not right to be tried by the court of rumors.

I am not familiar with "the rule of law". Just simply saying that the law as I know protects the innocent. Eric is innocent of the crime you accused him, unless you have written and signed statement from individuals making such accusations.

 

[leapfrog]

Rumors like these, correct or not, are harmful to individuals. Unless you have a name to write down, it simply is a rumor. And it is not right to be tried by the court of rumors.

I am not familiar with "the rule of law". Just simply saying that the law as I know protects the innocent. Eric is innocent of the crime you accused him, unless you have written and signed statement from individuals making such accusations.

You are off base here.

1. Not a rumor. A statement made by one of the parties directly involved that I did not to give credence because the agency had not made its statement.
2.Sorry to hear you are not familiar with the rule of law. The rest of the civilized world lives by it.
3. Nobody, absolutely nobody has accused him of a CRIME! You are misleading the readers of the thread.

What I said that if he was sanctioned, knowing why would help to avoid someone doing whatever it is he may of done again.