3 ms·
It depends on what your personal views are here. If you wanted the outcome of the case to be at least some money going towards opioid treatment, then this deci
by LordKeren 2y ago
It depends on what your personal views are here.
If you wanted the outcome of the case to be at least some money going towards opioid treatment, then this decision could jeopardize that outcome.
However, if you thought that the Sackler family being able to escape any personal liability despite the myriad of evidence of many of their involvement in stoking the opioid epidemic— and they still got to keep a very sizeable amount of the family fortune— is morally repugnant and legally dubious, then this court decision is a positive.
I would personally prefer many of the executives and members of the Sackler family to be held liable, their assets seized, and formal charges brought against them. But that’s unlikely
- wyldberry 2y agoI wouldn't be opposed to similar outcomes as the Chinese baby milk scandal in the end.
- bonestamp2 2y agoTo save everyone the google, several people went to jail with terms ranging from 5 to 15 years (after reduced sentences). Two people were executed.
- Sander_Marechal 2y agoFrom Wikipedia: > A number of trials were conducted by the Chinese government resulting in two executions, three sentences of life imprisonment, two 15-year prison sentences, and the firing or forced resignation of seven local government officials and the Director of the Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ). The former chairwoman of China's Sanlu dairy was sentenced to life in prison. Yeah, that sounds nice :-)
- hinkley 2y agoThey should have their wages garnished until the end of time.
- LordKeren 2y agoMany of the most high profile names involved in Purdue Pharma or the Sackler family have retired or have passed away, so garnishment wouldn’t be as impactful as asset seizure (directly or from the estate of those that died)