5 ms·

No, as then there is nothing for the settlement and remediation of the harm done.

caslon 5y ago
Why bother? I have multiple immediate family members that were affected and who aren't capable of coming back from it; I don't think they should get a reward if it means the Sacklers aren't pushed down with them. Doubly so given very few people will be getting anything, anyway.
- BrianOnHN 5y ago
  Sorry about your loss. There is no acceptable punishment for a crime of this scale that doesn't adequately deter future criminals. Billions in rewards isn't just inadequate, it's disrespectful to every victim and their families.
  - 2Xheadpalm 5y ago
    No acceptable punishment, maybe not, however, fear can go a long way! Actual fear of _really_ losing all their family wealth, basically everything but the shirt on their back with a lifetime of hard labor to follow is probably a scarier proposition to these kind of scum then death is. On that note, hanging some of them from the rafters may also help deter this kind of parasitic behavior going forward.
    - kuraudo 5y ago
      Why are we only talking about relieving them of their wealth? Why is capital punishment off the table?
  - rhizome 5y ago
    >There is no acceptable punishment for a crime of this scale that doesn't adequately deter future criminals. Well this is just a self-justifying statement. "Acceptable," "adequately," so many ways to weasel out of assigning any consequences. Let's just discuss how adequate a hypothetical punishment will be in the future that we both definitely know facts about. >Billions in rewards isn't just inadequate, it's disrespectful to every victim and their families. Disrespectful to remedy the loss of one or more breadwinners? Disrespectful to prevent descendants from firing up the corporate grill again? I don't know what ethical standard you're using, but it seems to elevate suffering and misfortune. Disgorgement and prison, the facts bear this out. That they were able to buy their way out of this is more evidence that the nation strives to protect criminals who have money and are white.
    - kaptainkarl--- 5y ago
      I'm 99% certain that you're outraged about a comment that you actually agree with.
magicalist 5y ago
> No, as then there is nothing for the settlement and remediation of the harm done. You're the one that invented that dichotomy, so you'll need to support it with more than speculation as a counterargument or admit it's just that. The US can afford $4 billion in opioid relief efforts on its own (what's the yearly budget at federal and state level already?) so it's not like we're in a position to beg for scraps here. But really there's no reason why there would be nothing left of their fortune after lawyer fees. More importantly, this stance makes it ok to make a profit this way. They would come out of this with billions of dollars more than they started with and no threat of ever being legally liable again. They should not have that money. They set up a pharmaceutical empire with thousands of reps pushing disinformation to doctors and patients, they should absolutely have to deal with thousands of lawsuits come home to roost.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  > The US can afford $4 billion in opioid relief efforts on its own Exactly what I was thinking. Go after the Sacklers, relentlessly, as long as it takes, until they have nothing, and hopefully are in jail. The few billions of dollars coming out of this settlement aren't even a rounding error in the US federal budget, we can afford to just pay it ourselves. I'm happy to do that if it means putting the Sacklers behind bars, bankrupt.

Why bother? I have multiple immediate family members that were affected and who aren't capable of coming back from it; I don't think they should get a reward if it means the Sacklers aren't pushed down with them. Doubly so given very few people will be getting anything, anyway.

BrianOnHN 5y ago
Sorry about your loss. There is no acceptable punishment for a crime of this scale that doesn't adequately deter future criminals. Billions in rewards isn't just inadequate, it's disrespectful to every victim and their families.
- 2Xheadpalm 5y ago
  No acceptable punishment, maybe not, however, fear can go a long way! Actual fear of _really_ losing all their family wealth, basically everything but the shirt on their back with a lifetime of hard labor to follow is probably a scarier proposition to these kind of scum then death is. On that note, hanging some of them from the rafters may also help deter this kind of parasitic behavior going forward.
  - kuraudo 5y ago
    Why are we only talking about relieving them of their wealth? Why is capital punishment off the table?
- rhizome 5y ago
  >There is no acceptable punishment for a crime of this scale that doesn't adequately deter future criminals. Well this is just a self-justifying statement. "Acceptable," "adequately," so many ways to weasel out of assigning any consequences. Let's just discuss how adequate a hypothetical punishment will be in the future that we both definitely know facts about. >Billions in rewards isn't just inadequate, it's disrespectful to every victim and their families. Disrespectful to remedy the loss of one or more breadwinners? Disrespectful to prevent descendants from firing up the corporate grill again? I don't know what ethical standard you're using, but it seems to elevate suffering and misfortune. Disgorgement and prison, the facts bear this out. That they were able to buy their way out of this is more evidence that the nation strives to protect criminals who have money and are white.
  - kaptainkarl--- 5y ago
    I'm 99% certain that you're outraged about a comment that you actually agree with.

magicalist 5y ago

> No, as then there is nothing for the settlement and remediation of the harm done. You're the one that invented that dichotomy, so you'll need to support it with more than speculation as a counterargument or admit it's just that. The US can afford $4 billion in opioid relief efforts on its own (what's the yearly budget at federal and state level already?) so it's not like we're in a position to beg for scraps here. But really there's no reason why there would be nothing left of their fortune after lawyer fees. More importantly, this stance makes it ok to make a profit this way. They would come out of this with billions of dollars more than they started with and no threat of ever being legally liable again. They should not have that money. They set up a pharmaceutical empire with thousands of reps pushing disinformation to doctors and patients, they should absolutely have to deal with thousands of lawsuits come home to roost.

rootusrootus 5y ago
> The US can afford $4 billion in opioid relief efforts on its own Exactly what I was thinking. Go after the Sacklers, relentlessly, as long as it takes, until they have nothing, and hopefully are in jail. The few billions of dollars coming out of this settlement aren't even a rounding error in the US federal budget, we can afford to just pay it ourselves. I'm happy to do that if it means putting the Sacklers behind bars, bankrupt.