5 ms·

That's federal. I see from the wikipedia article that 47 states have felony murder laws, and their requirements vary widely by states. I think it's a fair assum

That's federal. I see from the wikipedia article that 47 states have felony murder laws, and their requirements vary widely by states. I think it's a fair assumption that the Sacklers committed felonies in one or more states. This brings me back to: I don't really understand the extent of this deal. Apparently 15 states have agreed to it. Does that mean that they've granted immunity to criminal prosecution in those states?

tptacek 5y ago
I just did some legwork for this thread. It's your turn. Go find the state felony murder law that would fit the fact pattern of a Sackler case.
- scottlamb 5y ago
  I clearly don't understand this case, this deal, or the laws well enough for that. But what I do understand is: it seems like our government has given up on pursuing consequences for people who have done this and on deterring others from doing this again. The Sacklers seem to have broken a lot of laws in a lot of jurisdictions with a lot of evidence and unbelievable harm, so it's very difficult for me to believe nothing could be done.
  - akerl_ 5y ago
    What makes it seem like they’ve broken a lot of laws in a lot of jurisdictions with a lot of evidence? Nobody here is claiming the Sacklers are good people, but being evil isn’t a crime. Nobody here seems to be able to point to a law they’ve broken and not been charged under.
- IntrepidWorm 5y ago
  I'd like to point out that many of the atrocities committed by the Nazis in the early 1940s were not, under their own laws, considered criminal. Nevertheless, it was possible to punish them (rather, a select handful who were egregious enough and also not directly useful enough to the prosecuting nations to recruit, but that's another point) for crimes against humanity. Broadly speaking, the legal framework is there. Its the legal willpower that is lacking.
  - tptacek 5y ago
    They weren't tried under their laws. Their laws were irrelevant once they were conquered. We haven't been conquered; the rule of law prevails; they'll be charged under our laws.

tptacek 5y ago

I just did some legwork for this thread. It's your turn. Go find the state felony murder law that would fit the fact pattern of a Sackler case.

scottlamb 5y ago
I clearly don't understand this case, this deal, or the laws well enough for that. But what I do understand is: it seems like our government has given up on pursuing consequences for people who have done this and on deterring others from doing this again. The Sacklers seem to have broken a lot of laws in a lot of jurisdictions with a lot of evidence and unbelievable harm, so it's very difficult for me to believe nothing could be done.
- akerl_ 5y ago
  What makes it seem like they’ve broken a lot of laws in a lot of jurisdictions with a lot of evidence? Nobody here is claiming the Sacklers are good people, but being evil isn’t a crime. Nobody here seems to be able to point to a law they’ve broken and not been charged under.
IntrepidWorm 5y ago
I'd like to point out that many of the atrocities committed by the Nazis in the early 1940s were not, under their own laws, considered criminal. Nevertheless, it was possible to punish them (rather, a select handful who were egregious enough and also not directly useful enough to the prosecuting nations to recruit, but that's another point) for crimes against humanity. Broadly speaking, the legal framework is there. Its the legal willpower that is lacking.
- tptacek 5y ago
  They weren't tried under their laws. Their laws were irrelevant once they were conquered. We haven't been conquered; the rule of law prevails; they'll be charged under our laws.