9 ms·
If we had a justice system, that $10.8 billion would be recoverable, and used to try to rehabilitate the victims. But we don't have a justice system. We have
by wombatmobile 6y ago
If we had a justice system, that $10.8 billion would be recoverable, and used to try to rehabilitate the victims.
But we don't have a justice system. We have a legal system, and a financial system.
- casraso 6y agoThis is why I am puzzled when people say 'you should fight your battles in the courts, not through protests'. It has always been about who can afford better lawyers, who can win the war of attrition, and a whole lot of luck along the way. Quite a few articles have showed up on HN the past week that reinforce this.
- zimpenfish 6y agoI think, generally, the people saying that are the ones who have the advantage when it comes to court battles...
- 082349872349872 6y agoSome thoughts attributed to ca. 600 BC: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:2008.01.0063:chapter=5&highlight=laws http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:20...
- zimpenfish 6y agoHa, perfect, thanks.
- WJW 6y agoFighting battles through protests seems like it is mainly a case of who can afford better PR companies, win the war of attrition and has a whole lot of luck along the way. In addition, at least with a court case you can be sure public opinion doesn't just forget about it in a few months and moves on to the next hot item to protest.
- me_me_me 6y agoYeah, cuz that how every social change occurred in the world. Via two people talking in the room... Give me a break, legal system never changes itself. From Ghandi, Bolshevik revolution, Solidarity, French revolution to MLK. Change only occurs due to mass civil dissonance or armed revolutions. Never because you talk in a court and all people in power agreed you make sense.
- WJW 6y agoYou're arguing a different point than I made. Legal systems are as averse to change as the large masses of society (ie very averse). They do move eventually btw, but it's more on the scale of decades than months. What I was getting at is that protesting is not a very reliable way to effect change either. The "other side" of any protest is also trying to change the narrative and can often just wait out the protests. Look at how the various Occupy movements eventually dissolved after a few months because they weren't getting anywhere. Even the "main" camp (if one can talk about such a thing with Occupy) was eventually cleared by the police and didn't bother reforming somewhere else anymore. The gilets jaunes in France are currently experiencing the same problem. I'd be quite interested in a way to reliably bring about societal change in a reasonable amount of time and in a morally defensible way, but I have not found any yet. Since philosophers have been debating this since the days of the ancient Greeks I'm a bit doubtful that this is the time when we'll finally figure it out.
- shirakawasuna 6y agoProtesting is very effective when you do actual direct action and civil disobedience. Americans have gotten used to running ignorable police-sanctioned parades and calling them protests.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- shirakawasuna 6y agoThe court case is capital fighting capital. If it's the government, then it's the public's capital vs. private capital. The government is often at a disadvantage in this situation due to conflicts of interest and concerns over funds, as private capital is often far richer than anything the government can put forward. Proper protests etc. are direct action by the people against capital. There are still disadvantages, but they can be drowned out by simple numbers.
- autisticcurio 6y agoIf the system was honest, everyone would be taught at least the basics about law, medicine and finance, but you dont, you get taught enough to be a slave.
- dqpb 6y agoEveryone should teach themselves the basics of law, medicine, finance. Its easy to start. Just pick up some textbooks.
- autisticcurio 6y agoYou have no authority with your opinion though if you are not qualified. The exam process doesnt give your papers back to check your results against the text books and what the teachers have stated, so using science and previous observations going back at least 12,000years namely the various religions invented over time, people in authority can reinforce their positions by making sure trouble makers fail even as kids.
- calvano915 6y agoUnfortunately knowledge alone does not equal access to mechanisms of these disciplines. Without wealth, good luck using your law or medical knowledge to improve your situation aside from preventative measures. However, if knowledge is all you got, it's better than nothing at all and puts you ahead of many who won't be bothered.
- dqpb 6y agoI disagree. Knowledge is the great equalizer. You can't buy knowledge with money.
- Nasrudith 6y agoThey are taught - they just don't pay attention or remember the "boring stuff we will never use" and then after going with the flow for decades with no forward thinking look for somebody to blame for their own failures. Seriously, all of those who goofed off in home ec and math complaining years later that they don't know how to cook or balance a checkbook. The immediate resources were often subpar I will admit but don't say you weren't taught.
- unishark 6y ago> This is why I am puzzled when people say 'you should fight your battles in the courts, not through protests'. Sounds like it was worded wrong (depending what you mean by "protests"). "fight your battles in the courts" is generally a statement about non-violence, meant to suggest metaphorical fighting in courts instead of actual violence.
- lordnacho 6y agoDon't forget, there is also a reputation system. It should be made clear that whatever the justice system decides, much of their wealth has derived from an activity that was net negative for humanity. And yes, I have heard that PR companies exist to clean up reputations, but it should be possible to at least make it clear what happened. I think I read somewhere that a hedge fund had decided not to take an allocation from the Sacklers. That's exactly the kind of thing reputation is supposed to do. It's a blunt instrument, but people deciding to partially ostracize those who have done wrong is how things should work.
- save_ferris 6y agoI’m sorry but this is so naive. They were billionaires yesterday and they’re going to be billionaires tomorrow. Their reputation is going to be fine because we live in a society that absolutely worships money and those who have it. People with that kind of money can pay to scrub the internet.
- hn_throwaway_99 6y ago> People with that kind of money can pay to scrub the internet. I'm sorry but this is so naive. Maybe true if you've got a bit of money and a little bit of notoriety, but I don't think that it would be possible to dissociate the Sacklers' name from the opioid crisis anytime soon.
- hans1729 6y ago> I don't think that it would be possible to dissociate the Sacklers' name from the opioid crisis anytime soon Attention is short. I wouldn't rule it out; pr goes a long way. Spend a couple million on a completely unrelated but well regarded cause of charity and folks who don't have skin in the opioid-game won't associate them for the bad they did (but for their most recent memories). What will keep the association alive for a while will be documentaries and those who watch them, but lets be real: that's not the public.
- 6y ago
- shrubble 6y agoWhen plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it. Frédéric Bastiat
- MRantiHATE 6y agoAre you referring to the fact that the Sackler family is all Jewish? Please cool it with the anti-semitism.
- metaloqui 6y agoHow did you manage to connect that to antisemitism?
- zentiggr 6y agoLooks trolly.
- justwalt 6y agoI think it’s an attempt to quote American Psycho, although it’s slightly wrong.
- MRantiHATE 6y agoWhat other "groups" are the Sacklers a member of?
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago> What other "groups" are the Sacklers a member of? I took it to be a criticism of American culture.
- rscho 6y agoRich people. They come in all shape and size.
- alpineidyll3 6y ago<Karl Llewellyn enters the thread>
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago> If we had a justice system, that $10.8 billion would be recoverable We’re in the midst of a series of lawsuits and criminal probes seeking to do exactly that. When public pressure rushes prosecutors, we get nonsense like Arizona getting rejected for original jurisdiction by SCOTUS. We have due process. Not mob rule.
- cultus 6y agoMuch of the money is diffucult to recover by being tied up in byzantine arrangements of LLCs and overseas accounts. That's generally how the rich avoid paying taxes as well. We have due process for the privileged. Tell all of the poor defendants who have been held in Rikers for over a year without a trial that they have due process.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago> Much of the money is diffucult to recover by being tied up in byzantine arrangements of LLCs and overseas accounts Yet this reporter was able to assemble the trail from court documents. For every person creating Byzantine structures there are several adept at untangling them. > Tell all of the poor defendants who have been held in Rikers for over a year without a trial Not arguing that they aren’t getting an advantage. Just that there is zero evidence so far that they’re going to get away with it. Also, New York has abolished cash bail. If someone is in pre-trial detention, it’s because they were deemed to be a flight risk. Not because they couldn’t afford bail. (EDIT: Never mind, we rolled back most of the changes in April after a purported crime surge)
- stefan_ 6y ago"search warrant sacklers" 0 results It's hard to make a case for something being prosecuted in good faith if there is never any attempt at using the tools that are otherwise so vastly abused in prosecuting the most meaningless "crimes".
- stallmanite 6y ago
- umvi 6y agoSurely 100% of opiod usage isn't bad? So 100% of the $10.8B isn't blood money? I'm sure some % of the opioids really helped people. For example, my grandpa has extremely painful back pain, and opioids were a godsend. Yeah, he got addicted, but he's in his 90s anyway, so at least he can live the rest of his life without dealing with crippling back pain.
- bcrosby95 6y agoThe cost to market and develop the drug could easily outstrip the revenue from legitimate uses, especially if they spent a lot of money marketing the drug towards people that shouldn't be taking it. So yeah, all $10.8B could be blood money.
- jessaustin 6y agoHow much "development" did it take? Oxy was first manufactured in 1917. "Opioids relieve pain and are much sought by opioid users", film at eleven. Any physician who didn't know what would obviously happen when this drug was prescribed is one whose care I would avoid. But yeah, take all their money. The actions described in TFA obliterate the corporate veil. Frankly I don't know how they've avoided assassination attempts by the families of addicts.
- FlyMoreRockets 6y agoSure, there are good applications of opiates. However, from my understanding, the $10.8B number is the amount that the court has ordered, i.e. the "blood money" and punitive amount, not the total profit.
- sunstone 6y agoAccording to the article $4.8bn of the $10.8bn has already been paid in tax. So that portion has been 'recovered'. The remaining $6bn though is still in play. What I don't see being mentioned is jail time. So it's not criminal to push habit forming narcotics from behind a corporate curtain?
- mmm_grayons 6y agoIs all that money tainted? While oxycontin holds a huge potential for abuse I know plenty of people who have taken it for real pain, been helped by it, and moved on. "Just take it all" doesn't sound like justice either.
- smolder 6y agoTaking it all seems fair to me. When someone steals from a retailer, we don't just make them pay for it and send them on their way, because that doesn't disincentivize stealing in the first place. The Sacklers/Purdue would need to be punished for the predatory, antisocial scheme to prevent others like it.
- mmm_grayons 6y agoWhile an additional fine might be fair, again, just "taking it all" isn't. The Sacklers, while they might have played a small part, are being unfairly scapegoated for the whole of the opioid epidemic. This ignores the responsibility borne by states, physicians, and most importantly, those who choose to take the pills. This was also done with FDA approval. More importantly, this is a part of the larger narrative that everything has been caused by overprescribed opioids. However, there's no correlation between increased prescriptions and increased illicit usage [0]. Rather, it seems there's been a large growth over time of illicit opioid use [1]. The only place this sort of thing has been effectively combated is in Portugal due to its decriminalization and attempts to make things safer. Politicians caused this with their stupid "war on drugs". They are now pointing and saying, "Look, the big bad Sacklers did it!" so their own failures are ignored. Stop scapegoating one family for a political and societal issue. 0: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330922982_Today%27s_nonmedical_opioid_users_are_not_yesterday%27s_patients_implications_of_data_indicating_stable_rates_of_nonmedical_use_and_pain_reliever_use_disorder https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330922982_Today%27s... 1: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180920161028.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180920161028.h...
- smolder 6y agoI don't think they're being unfairly scapegoated. Oxycontin was an epidemic in itself. I've seen plenty of evidence from a variety of sources that their pills were aggressively and deceptively marketed as non-addictive, and that their wide availability led to an increase in opioid abuse. That includes knowing people who started on opioid addictions with brand name oxycontin and having heard countless anecdotes of the same. I'm having trouble understanding the motive for minimizing Purdue's role. The deception in marketing and all its consequences belong to them. It's difficult to imagine they merely made a mistake in trying to be effective marketers as opposed to knowingly misrepresenting what they sold in a way that was likely to harm the public. All that said, I generally favor your stance that ending prohibition would yield the greatest harm reduction.
- anm89 6y agoAnd what would a justice system look like, not in terms of vague sentiments or specific outcomes but in terms of process. Justice is inherently subjective. A "justice system" to you is a facist dictatorship as implemented because it inherently relies on all justice coming from the subjective opinions of a single person, you.