3 ms·

What kind of evidence are you expecting to be discovered? Teleconferences where they discuss intentionally killing people by causing overdoses? I am almost cer

by nickff 5y ago

What kind of evidence are you expecting to be discovered? Teleconferences where they discuss intentionally killing people by causing overdoses? I am almost certain that the Sacklers thought they were producing drugs which would relieve pain and help end-users live happier and more productive lives. This may have been self-deception, but I don't have the knowledge to do a cost-benefit analysis of this situation (though I'd be interested to see one on opiods).

elliekelly 5y ago
Purdue, the company, has pleaded guilty to two crimes. Presumably there is plenty of evidence of criminal activity. The question is whether and to what extent the family members, as individuals, might be criminally (or civilly) responsible.
- gruez 5y ago
  >Purdue, the company, has pleaded guilty to two crimes. Presumably there is plenty of evidence of criminal activity. It's much easier to convict the corporation than its members.
  - alistairSH 5y ago
    Which is the root of the problem. The Sacklers get throw the company under the bus and walk away with billions in ill-gotten gains. A company shouldn’t be capable of committing crimes - there has to be at least one person who caused the company to do illegal things.
    - gruez 5y ago
      >there has to be at least one person who caused the company to do illegal things. People do get convicted of misconduct at a corporation. It's just that in some (most?) instances, the criminality is so diffuse that you can't convict anyone of anything, so you end up convicting the corporation instead.
      - biaachmonkie 5y ago
        So then everyone should be convicted/sentenced to prison for the crimes of the corporation they are a part of in proportion to their ownership and/or control over the corporation.
jasonlaramburu 5y ago
>What kind of evidence are you expecting to be discovered? Teleconferences where they discuss intentionally killing people by causing overdoses? I am not a lawyer, but I don't think the state needs to prove intent to kill. It could have been negligence, eg they knew people were getting addicted but declined to change their aggressive marketing tactics.
aurizon 5y ago
AH, Just the person I have in mind for my Florida waterfront property. Only 6 feet deep at the shore at low tide..... I say that because of your belief in the humanitarian nature of the sacklers. The sacklers wove a web of fraud and arm's length de-facto murder that they need to be tried, one at a time for them, with no trial bail allowed. I fully expect the sacklers to run for it one day to a place they can not be extradited from, or even vanish off shore if it looks like they will ever get called on to pay for their crimes. Without their actions perhaps 400,000 to 450,000 of their victims might be alive. They were, for the most parts, people led down a garden path of inexorable addiction and death. There are a few million, who were damaged, but lived. (why do you think the sacklers want immunity forever?)The toll of human suffering and death that leads directly to their front door - that is what the Justice Department knows and pursues. They were not criminals - at the start, they followed the $$, to our cost. Some people can resist addiction - cold turkey people, like me. I had flesh eating disease after my legs being crushed in a car accident. (pix available, PM me, I still have persistent muscle loss areas) They used, on me, a cocktail of antibiotics fed by an auto-pump, that also created intense pain. The infection was defeated, and the pain was suppressed by oxy-contin. After the infection subsided and the pain left, the oxy-contin was cut off by the doctors. It was then that I felt what addiction was like - intense fidgets(but no more pain), twitch, sleeplessness, etc. I was one of those who are capable of cutting it off, cold turkey, which is what I did. After 2 weeks it was gone. I still have some of the pills left - in case the pain returned. Apparently a high % of people can not self cold turkey like I can. I also do not drink at all, never liked booze in any form. I could never understand alcoholics either? If I have 8 drinks, I get woozy, lose co-ordination etc - it is pleasant, being drunk, but I can take it it leave it. I suspect that alcohol and oxy-contin addicts must get a supreme pleasure - I pleasure I do not get. It is possible that if I got the intense addict's pleasure that I would also be unable to resist it as well, I am lucky to be in that segment of mankind that does not get this intense pleasure - if only we could bottle it and end addictions??. Sorry for the rant, but I hate to see the sacklers skate free with their billions, which others suffered and suffer on. sackler = lower case, they are low grade people in all respects.

by nickff 5y ago

elliekelly 5y ago

Purdue, the company, has pleaded guilty to two crimes. Presumably there is plenty of evidence of criminal activity. The question is whether and to what extent the family members, as individuals, might be criminally (or civilly) responsible.

gruez 5y ago
>Purdue, the company, has pleaded guilty to two crimes. Presumably there is plenty of evidence of criminal activity. It's much easier to convict the corporation than its members.
- alistairSH 5y ago
  Which is the root of the problem. The Sacklers get throw the company under the bus and walk away with billions in ill-gotten gains. A company shouldn’t be capable of committing crimes - there has to be at least one person who caused the company to do illegal things.
  - gruez 5y ago
    >there has to be at least one person who caused the company to do illegal things. People do get convicted of misconduct at a corporation. It's just that in some (most?) instances, the criminality is so diffuse that you can't convict anyone of anything, so you end up convicting the corporation instead.
    - biaachmonkie 5y ago
      So then everyone should be convicted/sentenced to prison for the crimes of the corporation they are a part of in proportion to their ownership and/or control over the corporation.

jasonlaramburu 5y ago

>What kind of evidence are you expecting to be discovered? Teleconferences where they discuss intentionally killing people by causing overdoses? I am not a lawyer, but I don't think the state needs to prove intent to kill. It could have been negligence, eg they knew people were getting addicted but declined to change their aggressive marketing tactics.

aurizon 5y ago

AH, Just the person I have in mind for my Florida waterfront property. Only 6 feet deep at the shore at low tide..... I say that because of your belief in the humanitarian nature of the sacklers. The sacklers wove a web of fraud and arm's length de-facto murder that they need to be tried, one at a time for them, with no trial bail allowed. I fully expect the sacklers to run for it one day to a place they can not be extradited from, or even vanish off shore if it looks like they will ever get called on to pay for their crimes. Without their actions perhaps 400,000 to 450,000 of their victims might be alive. They were, for the most parts, people led down a garden path of inexorable addiction and death. There are a few million, who were damaged, but lived. (why do you think the sacklers want immunity forever?)The toll of human suffering and death that leads directly to their front door - that is what the Justice Department knows and pursues. They were not criminals - at the start, they followed the $$, to our cost. Some people can resist addiction - cold turkey people, like me. I had flesh eating disease after my legs being crushed in a car accident. (pix available, PM me, I still have persistent muscle loss areas) They used, on me, a cocktail of antibiotics fed by an auto-pump, that also created intense pain. The infection was defeated, and the pain was suppressed by oxy-contin. After the infection subsided and the pain left, the oxy-contin was cut off by the doctors. It was then that I felt what addiction was like - intense fidgets(but no more pain), twitch, sleeplessness, etc. I was one of those who are capable of cutting it off, cold turkey, which is what I did. After 2 weeks it was gone. I still have some of the pills left - in case the pain returned. Apparently a high % of people can not self cold turkey like I can. I also do not drink at all, never liked booze in any form. I could never understand alcoholics either? If I have 8 drinks, I get woozy, lose co-ordination etc - it is pleasant, being drunk, but I can take it it leave it. I suspect that alcohol and oxy-contin addicts must get a supreme pleasure - I pleasure I do not get. It is possible that if I got the intense addict's pleasure that I would also be unable to resist it as well, I am lucky to be in that segment of mankind that does not get this intense pleasure - if only we could bottle it and end addictions??. Sorry for the rant, but I hate to see the sacklers skate free with their billions, which others suffered and suffer on. sackler = lower case, they are low grade people in all respects.