Following the Halloween accident, a vigorous debate has broken out over responsibility for the tragedy and to what degree individuals are involved.

Some have argued that focus and blame should be with authorities. That they were the ones responsible and that there is virtually no responsibility for this with either businesses or individual attendees (short of either engaging in criminal behavior). They argue that diverting attention from authority and leadership fails to hold the authorities accountable and dilutes the search for answers. Some might also argue it verges on victim-blaming and that this won't help contribute to safety improvements if there is not sufficient pressure on those who have the power to act. It is important that leadership is active and held to account. Others may be irresponsible, but leadership must always be responsible. A culture of safety would trickle down from the top and even if those below didn't have ANY attention to safety, the leadership is there to ensure safety.

Others have argued that while there should be accountability and ultimate responsibility and culpability with the authorities, there also should be some degree of responsibility with everyone involved. That while this may not mean they are to blame, they did either contribute or perhaps even verged on complicity. Either way they did not strenuously object before the fact to the point of non-participation or active protest. They believe that the contributing factors by those involved should also be addressed in order to improve safety. And that the responsibility for a safe event is not overwhelmingly on authorities but also in operators, merchants and attendees. A much "flatter" and communal view of responsibility is held. They argue that in order to create a true safety culture, you need attention to safety and a sense of responsibility at all levels and that focusing responsibility only on authorities will cause other levels to not share view safety as their responsibility.

The question then becomes, which do you believe contributes most to a culture of safety, if not in this case specifically, then in general. For example, at a sporting event. Is the responsibility for safety primarily on the authorities, mostly municipalities, the police and perhaps the league. Or do the teams, the stadium operators, the vendors and the spectators also bear responsibility? To be sure this sense of responsibility could wildly vary depending on circumstance. One who strongly believes in hierarchical safety culture at one event might feel completely the opposite at a different event or in a different situation and vice-versa. I suspect most of us, rather than believing in all of one or all of the other, will lean to some degree and believe that both are necessary.

As I am involved in this debate directly and on one side, I did my best to try and fairly represent the other side and not over-representing my own and to do the best justice I could to their argument. However, I probably failed to do their view justice and so I would hope that they present their views and speak for themselves to ensure that their view is properly represented.

Comments from others would be welcome! The only thing I ask is that this focus as much on theory and past accident as on this specific case. Hopefully if we detach ourselves and look at cases where we aren't as emotionally invested and personally connected, we can examine the issue with as much rationality and consideration as possible.

I will say, however, autonomous organizing doesn't always scale up effectively. If you've got a small, member-run music venue with a capacity of 150 people, it's good to have people working the door who recognize 80% of the faces that pass through on a given night. That helps build a sense of trust, community and mutual respect. Better yet, it makes a lot of sense to rotate door security responsibilities among a pool of members, so that an understanding of that side of the operation is spread among a large group. Any time the doors are open, there are likely to be several people present who share that responsibility but are effectively off-duty, meaning they can step in if needed. However, if you're running a 2,000 capacity, commercially-driven nightclub, I understand why this model doesn't work, and it you might want to hire some guys without a lot of education but a deep passion for kicking ass instead.

Well, we’re living in a civilization with a long-standing hierarchical philosophy (五伦), which also happens to be the safest place in the world. If you want not safe, go to liberal “flat hierarchy” ‘Merika.

So, the results speak for themselves.

Accountability horizontally and vertically.

In Korea, accountability only happens after every tragedy. Preventative measures are only taken to prevent similar disasters from happenings but no proactive steps are taken to ensure safety in other areas.

In between each tragedy, Koreans don't give a shit about other Koreans, that's the hard truth. Other than the family members of those who died, no-one cares about Itaewon anymore.

More CCTV means less crime.

More surveillance means fewer terrorists.

It’s great the jihadists can be stopped beforehand.

No more 9/11s since 9/11. The U.S. worked hard to stop Al-Qaeda. The efforts were a success. The world is safer and freer.