Is there a logical fallacy in this argument?

Question

General Parker orders a curfew citywide to reduce crime rate.

While curfew is on effect, General Parker's soldiers caught a violator and took him to detention center.

While in detention center, the other inmates ganged up on the violator and beat him, up. And he died.

Therefore, General parker's is to be blame, since the violator wouldn't have died if he didn't end up in a detention center because of the curfew

In abstraction, Post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore because of this") would be the fallacy. However, the issue of causal responsibility is not so simple. General Parker might share some of the blame if he knew, or should have known, about conditions in his detention centers and did not take appropriate measures to prevent such incidents after imposing the curfew, see Is it a logical flaw to blame someone for an event if they were simply its causal factor? — Conifold, Jun 21 '18 at 18:03

score 1 · Answer 1 · answered Jun 21 '18 at 18:37

The violator wouldn’t have died if the inmates hadn’t ganged up on him. The inmates are to be blamed.

The violator wouldn’t have died if the soldiers had taken good care of him at the detention center. The soldiers are to be blamed.

The violator wouldn’t have died if the violator had not violated the curfew in the first place. The violator is to be blamed.

The violator wouldn’t have died if the General, who is responsible for the operation of the detention center, had taken good supervision of the detention center to prevent any unacceptable incident.

I agree with Conifold that the General should share some of the blame for not taking good supervision of the detention center but not for ordering the curfew.

Is there a logical fallacy in this argument?

1 Answers1