"And this is why we draw and quarter drunk drivers" ....wait
Of course we don't draw and quarter drunk drivers. Just because an offense does not require mens rea does not mean that we throw out all sense of proportional punishment.
Firing programmers for creating bugs (an offense without mens rea) is massively disproportionate, which is why we don't do it (at least until the severity and frequency of the bugs becomes unreasonable and other corrective options have been expended.)
An offense without mens rea is an offense without malicious intent. I am giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming that there was no malicious intent, only incompetence. How can you not get this?
Drunk driving laws use strict liability, meaning that absolutely no mens rea is required to prosecute a drunk driver. Incompetence, rather than malicious intent, can be assumed but the drunk driver is nevertheless pursued and ultimately punished in a proportionate fashion.
Nobody here is suggesting that we drag these school administrators off to criminal or civil court for being spineless tyrants through incompetence. What we are suggesting is that in the "court of public opinion", their 'crime' should use strict liability. School administrators do not need to act maliciously for us to criticize them. Incompetence, without mens rea, is fair game for criticism.
Who gives a shit if they are just incompetent? I assume that they are. That does not get them off the hook.
No. Incompetence isn't potentially harmful, it is invariably harmful. It creates environments with a slavish adherence to protocol unsuitable for purpose. If you are sufficiently old you have seen workplaces like that and if you have any sense of purpose you got out of them as fast as you could.
