3 ms·

I believe that the Justice Department is supposed to act in the legal realm, not the moral one.

by nickff 5y ago

r00fus 5y ago
The concept of "justice" and "law" are based on morality.
- gruez 5y ago
  Based on, but not the same as. "these guys did a bad thing but technically didn't break any laws, let's punish them anyways" might be moral, but is against the rule of law.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    It gets a little tricky here because in the US (and Canada) ex post facto laws are only forbidden in criminal matters. Laws may be applied retroactively in civil matters (Calder v. Bull). Further, at least in Canada, parliament can institute ex post facto laws by invoking the nothwithstanding clause. Always a little hairy politically, but legal and compatible with the rule of law. [edit] I would further argue that ex post facto laws in general are immoral.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
etchalon 5y ago
I believe the DoJ should strive to find legal solutions to moral issues.
- abakker 5y ago
  Morals change, laws need to keep pace but should not anticipate changes in morals. Laws look backward at what was previously legal or illegal.
  - yunohn 5y ago
    The problem here is not about laws “failing to keep up” with morals. It’s legal structures being abused to get away with immoral activities. This isn’t the first or last such case where that’s happened.
  - xxpor 5y ago
    Which is why the Dept of Justice is part of the Executive branch, and the Attorney General is appointed by the elected president.
spoonjim 5y ago
There are plenty of ways, strictly in the legal realm, where the Sacklers can go to jail. But I haven't seen any state try.
alistairSH 5y ago
Disagree. The JD is limited by the legal realm, but should strive for moral outcomes. In this case, is there a more moral solution that remains within the realm of legal? Perhaps not, but I'd like the JD to try, since the proposed solution strikes me as allowing the Sackler family to profit massively off immoral activities. IMO (as a layman, not a lawyer), I'm unclear on why a corporate bankruptcy settlement involves immunity for the Sacklers. If we are not allowed to pierce the corporate veil, it should go both ways. If they want to keep their fortunes, they should remain open to civil suits. Alternatively, they can forfeit the vast majority of their fortunes in return for immunity from future suits.

I believe that the Justice Department is supposed to act in the legal realm, not the moral one.

by nickff 5y ago

I believe that the Justice Department is supposed to act in the legal realm, not the moral one.

r00fus 5y ago

The concept of "justice" and "law" are based on morality.

gruez 5y ago
Based on, but not the same as. "these guys did a bad thing but technically didn't break any laws, let's punish them anyways" might be moral, but is against the rule of law.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  It gets a little tricky here because in the US (and Canada) ex post facto laws are only forbidden in criminal matters. Laws may be applied retroactively in civil matters (Calder v. Bull). Further, at least in Canada, parliament can institute ex post facto laws by invoking the nothwithstanding clause. Always a little hairy politically, but legal and compatible with the rule of law. [edit] I would further argue that ex post facto laws in general are immoral.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

etchalon 5y ago

I believe the DoJ should strive to find legal solutions to moral issues.

abakker 5y ago
Morals change, laws need to keep pace but should not anticipate changes in morals. Laws look backward at what was previously legal or illegal.
- yunohn 5y ago
  The problem here is not about laws “failing to keep up” with morals. It’s legal structures being abused to get away with immoral activities. This isn’t the first or last such case where that’s happened.
- xxpor 5y ago
  Which is why the Dept of Justice is part of the Executive branch, and the Attorney General is appointed by the elected president.

spoonjim 5y ago

There are plenty of ways, strictly in the legal realm, where the Sacklers can go to jail. But I haven't seen any state try.

alistairSH 5y ago

Disagree. The JD is limited by the legal realm, but should strive for moral outcomes. In this case, is there a more moral solution that remains within the realm of legal? Perhaps not, but I'd like the JD to try, since the proposed solution strikes me as allowing the Sackler family to profit massively off immoral activities. IMO (as a layman, not a lawyer), I'm unclear on why a corporate bankruptcy settlement involves immunity for the Sacklers. If we are not allowed to pierce the corporate veil, it should go both ways. If they want to keep their fortunes, they should remain open to civil suits. Alternatively, they can forfeit the vast majority of their fortunes in return for immunity from future suits.