Should the governor of Michigan be prosecuted for ignoring environmental issues that could endanger the health of citizens?

  • Whose best interest?

    The government is always supposed to look out for the best interest of its citizens. Any breech of that social contract deserves action. If the government knowingly cause harm to its citizens, criminal charges for those who performed the actions are most certainly warranted. Why would a politician or government be held to a different level of responsibility than ordinary citizens?

  • Being Governor means accepting responsibility

    Any Governor must take responsibility for either actions or inactions that impact citizens. The problems with the water supply in Flint, were known to state officials in July last year. Not only did it take two months for citizens to be alerted, but it was another three months before Snyder activated the National Guard to distribute bottled water. That is completely unacceptable and, in my opinion, criminal.

  • The governor should be impeached but not prosecuted

    Ignoring environmental issues that endanger the health of citizens indicates a dereliction of duty, and perhaps even brings into question the governor's priorities, however, he should not face criminal charges unless more damning evidence comes to light. Political leaders face tough decisions on a daily basis, and they're not always going to get things right.

  • No, Governor Snyder should not be prosecuted for the dangerous environmental issue.

    In my opinion, Michigan's governer, Rick Snyder does not deserve to be punished for the recent lead poisoning of Flint's water supply. While the debacle is most certainly disconcerting, the governor was leaving the responsibility to the Department of Environmental Quality. This may sound like passing the buck but governors are responsible for overseeing all and must designate and trust departments to do their jobs.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.