4 ms·

If I gave 40,000 people cancer as an individual and killed several thousands of people as a result, I wouldn't lose 3 years of disposal income. I would lose all

by 93po 4y ago

If I gave 40,000 people cancer as an individual and killed several thousands of people as a result, I wouldn't lose 3 years of disposal income. I would lose all of it, forever, as I sit and rot in prison for the rest of my life. This is the sort of punishment we need for corporations.

refurb 4y ago
40,000 people got cancer from talc? Please link the research paper that shows that. Everybody thinks personal injury lawyers are slimy but then quotes their “data” like it was proven fact.
- westpfelia 4y ago
  What do you think the lawsuit was about? You think J&J is being forced to pay the measly 8.9 billion just because they want this to go away? 40,000 people got cancer that we know of. People should be in jail.
  - _a_a_a_ 4y ago
    Where is this figure given? I can't see it (may have skipped over it accidentally)
    - freeone3000 4y ago
      It is the number of members in the class.
      - Auracle 4y ago
        Which would just be people that got a relevant cancer that also used the product - that signed up to be part of the class. People get cancer all the time. It’s very, very hard to prove a causal relationship.
        freeone3000 4y ago
        Assumably this is why there’s a trial. J&J is willing to pay $9B to avoid one; this leads me to believe that they think they have a significant risk of having cancer be linked to their product.
  - smabie 4y ago
    Which people?
- bastawhiz 4y ago
  Let's consider, for a moment, that they paid nine billion (with a B) as a settlement because they thought that it would be cheaper than the outcome of fully litigating it. Which is to say, $9B was the cheaper option. Regardless of the numbers, for that to be true, you've got to be pretty convinced you've fucked up really hard.
  - thfuran 4y ago
    No, you just have to be convinced that there's a pretty good chance that a jury can be convinced that you need to pay for what you did.
    - bastawhiz 4y ago
      Clearly J&J was convinced
- 93po 4y ago
  40,000 people claimed it did and followed through with legal action. Sure, maybe only a percentage of them actually got it from talc. But globally, what percent of people who did get cancer from talc actually sue? Also likely a low percentage.
  - refurb 4y ago
    Maybe none?
- themitigating 4y ago
  Lawyers don't create the data.
  - refurb 4y ago
    No, but they certainly take weak data and argue why it's strong. And they make a ton of money doing it.
    - themitigating 4y ago
      And? That has nothing to do with what I'm replying to. Your just making another complaint.
za3faran 4y ago
They should pierce the corporate veil and go after any individuals who had personal involvement in the matter while being fully aware of what the consequences of their actions were. That way, the livelihood of other employees who have no say in the matter is not affected, and only those who directly participated are held accountable.
- themitigating 4y ago
  I agree with this and that included people who have retired. Find the people that knew and make them pay with jail time and a financial punishment
  - nradov 4y ago
    Which specific criminal law do you think they have violated? Please provide a citation to applicable state or federal criminal code. What they did was shitty, but I'm skeptical whether it would be possible for prosecutors to win a criminal conviction.
    - ryandrake 4y ago
      If you can give 40,000 people cancer and not break a law, maybe it's the law that needs to change.
      - nradov 4y ago
        Sounds good. Have you contacted your elected officials with a proposal for such a law?
    - themitigating 4y ago
      Negligent homicide,? Maybe make a new law
      - nradov 4y ago
        The way that negligent homicide is defined it would be impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a particular person's fatal cancer was directly caused by talc. A strong probability isn't sufficient for a criminal conviction. Some new law would likely be needed. How could such a law be written in a manner that satisfies the vagueness doctrine?
nradov 4y ago
That's not how the system works. It would be very difficult to convict you as an individual of a felony that would send you to prison. The burden of proof in criminal cases is much higher. Even if you were found liable in civil court you wouldn't lose all of your income forever. You would be able to declare personal bankruptcy and clear the debt.
- felipemnoa 4y ago
  >>Even if you were found liable in civil court you wouldn't lose all of your income forever. You would be able to declare personal bankruptcy and clear the debt. I guess it depends. From the net: "Instances in which a court ordered judgment won’t be overridden by bankruptcy include debts related to: Student loans Any debt owed to the government, including taxes and fines Court ordered awards related to criminal proceedings"
  - nradov 4y ago
    None of that is relevant. This case is not a criminal proceeding. Civil court judgments can generally be cleared in bankruptcy.

by 93po 4y ago

refurb 4y ago

40,000 people got cancer from talc? Please link the research paper that shows that. Everybody thinks personal injury lawyers are slimy but then quotes their “data” like it was proven fact.

westpfelia 4y ago
What do you think the lawsuit was about? You think J&J is being forced to pay the measly 8.9 billion just because they want this to go away? 40,000 people got cancer that we know of. People should be in jail.
- _a_a_a_ 4y ago
  Where is this figure given? I can't see it (may have skipped over it accidentally)
  - freeone3000 4y ago
    It is the number of members in the class.
    - Auracle 4y ago
      Which would just be people that got a relevant cancer that also used the product - that signed up to be part of the class. People get cancer all the time. It’s very, very hard to prove a causal relationship.
      - freeone3000 4y ago
        Assumably this is why there’s a trial. J&J is willing to pay $9B to avoid one; this leads me to believe that they think they have a significant risk of having cancer be linked to their product.
- smabie 4y ago
  Which people?
bastawhiz 4y ago
Let's consider, for a moment, that they paid nine billion (with a B) as a settlement because they thought that it would be cheaper than the outcome of fully litigating it. Which is to say, $9B was the cheaper option. Regardless of the numbers, for that to be true, you've got to be pretty convinced you've fucked up really hard.
- thfuran 4y ago
  No, you just have to be convinced that there's a pretty good chance that a jury can be convinced that you need to pay for what you did.
  - bastawhiz 4y ago
    Clearly J&J was convinced
93po 4y ago
40,000 people claimed it did and followed through with legal action. Sure, maybe only a percentage of them actually got it from talc. But globally, what percent of people who did get cancer from talc actually sue? Also likely a low percentage.
- refurb 4y ago
  Maybe none?
themitigating 4y ago
Lawyers don't create the data.
- refurb 4y ago
  No, but they certainly take weak data and argue why it's strong. And they make a ton of money doing it.
  - themitigating 4y ago
    And? That has nothing to do with what I'm replying to. Your just making another complaint.

za3faran 4y ago

They should pierce the corporate veil and go after any individuals who had personal involvement in the matter while being fully aware of what the consequences of their actions were. That way, the livelihood of other employees who have no say in the matter is not affected, and only those who directly participated are held accountable.

themitigating 4y ago
I agree with this and that included people who have retired. Find the people that knew and make them pay with jail time and a financial punishment
- nradov 4y ago
  Which specific criminal law do you think they have violated? Please provide a citation to applicable state or federal criminal code. What they did was shitty, but I'm skeptical whether it would be possible for prosecutors to win a criminal conviction.
  - ryandrake 4y ago
    If you can give 40,000 people cancer and not break a law, maybe it's the law that needs to change.
    - nradov 4y ago
      Sounds good. Have you contacted your elected officials with a proposal for such a law?
  - themitigating 4y ago
    Negligent homicide,? Maybe make a new law
    - nradov 4y ago
      The way that negligent homicide is defined it would be impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a particular person's fatal cancer was directly caused by talc. A strong probability isn't sufficient for a criminal conviction. Some new law would likely be needed. How could such a law be written in a manner that satisfies the vagueness doctrine?

nradov 4y ago

That's not how the system works. It would be very difficult to convict you as an individual of a felony that would send you to prison. The burden of proof in criminal cases is much higher. Even if you were found liable in civil court you wouldn't lose all of your income forever. You would be able to declare personal bankruptcy and clear the debt.

felipemnoa 4y ago
>>Even if you were found liable in civil court you wouldn't lose all of your income forever. You would be able to declare personal bankruptcy and clear the debt. I guess it depends. From the net: "Instances in which a court ordered judgment won’t be overridden by bankruptcy include debts related to: Student loans Any debt owed to the government, including taxes and fines Court ordered awards related to criminal proceedings"
- nradov 4y ago
  None of that is relevant. This case is not a criminal proceeding. Civil court judgments can generally be cleared in bankruptcy.