4 ms·
That deal "avoids costly litigation", so say various "states' attorney generals". It's funny how those same AGs strong-arm the little people every single day, p
by javajosh 5y ago
That deal "avoids costly litigation", so say various "states' attorney generals". It's funny how those same AGs strong-arm the little people every single day, put them in jail before trial, and then offer them a choice: plead guilty, get time served, and go on your way. Or, plead not guilty, make bail, if you can, and get your ass handed to you because you can't afford a competent attorney and our judges and cops collude to make it impossible to get justice. If you can't make bail, then you will rot in jail until your first hearing, weeks from now, and you'll get an overworked public defender and get the same result. What do you choose?
The Sacklers need that kind of choice.
EDIT: The DoJ needs to confiscate their assets under current DEA assert forfeiture law, the same one the local cops use to steal from ordinary people without cause. Then arrest them. Let's see how long the litigation draws out under those circumstances.
- formerly_proven 5y agoThe Sacklers are going to the same special hell where Tobacco executives end up.
- azemetre 5y agoI don't want them to go to hell, I want them in prison.
- spoonjim 5y agoThe right prison is a good approximation of hell. Not federal prison, but state prisons certainly
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- throwaway81523 5y agoIs that the equivalent of a country club jail?
- vkou 5y agoWhich is what, exactly? A Miami Beach penthouse condo, with a 500-acre manor in Hawai'i for the winter months?
- SpicyLemonZest 5y agoWhich specific crimes were committed by which specific Sacklers? I'm sympathetic to the idea that they might have done something wrong, but the impulse to throw people we don't like in jail now and figure out what they did wrong later is very dangerous, and even if other people are treated that way it isn't an excuse to further indulge it.
- javajosh 5y agoThe wealthy should suffer no more, or less, than ordinary folk. Our justice system is broken, and yet that breakage does not touch the Saklers. Maybe if it did, there'd be a cry for change from the people who can afford to spend the dollars needed to change the system.
- SpicyLemonZest 5y agoI think this comment clearly illustrates the danger I mentioned; "they must have committed some crime" inevitably and often immediately turns into "it doesn't matter whether they committed any specific crime". If we turn the justice system into a purely political exercise, not even aspiring to the ideal of punishing people for specific crimes they've committed, what would the basis of a cry for change be?
- javajosh 5y agoThey knew Oxycontin was addictive and claimed that it wasn't. They knew the deadly impact their drug was having on large groups of people, and yet did nothing to mitigate the impact. These are very serious crimes. Indeed, even if they were not, harming society in this way should be criminalized. I say this despite being pro-legalization. The issue isn't the drug itself, it's the lying, the undermining use of institutions like your family doctor, the FDA, to push this drug as if it were harmless, and to sit back and watch it take its toll, rolling in dough. It hurts.
- avgDev 5y agohttps://www.judgeforyourselves.com/info/ https://www.judgeforyourselves.com/info/
- throwdecro 5y ago> That deal "avoids costly litigation" I guess it would be worse if this were criminal litigation and not civil litigation, but it's still kind of incredible to see such a naked admission that if you can outspend the attorney general's office, you'll get special treatment.
- wefarrell 5y agoState/local prosecutors would rather go against an overworked overworked public defender than a well funded legal team from a firm that can eventually offer them a job. Fortunately, federal prosecutors love going after high profile individuals and aren't scared of their lawyers.
- dillondoyle 5y agoOr use their office for nonstarter political suits to rile up their base.