4 ms·

This is the only reasonable outcome... you can't deny some people justice just because other people think it's fine. The sacklers have done immeasurable damage

This is the only reasonable outcome... you can't deny some people justice just because other people think it's fine. The sacklers have done immeasurable damage to the country. All of their wealth should be removed. Their foundation should be dismantled and used to fund damage and mental health services for addicts of the opioid crisis that they went on to create. And perhaps some of the individual pushers/purveyors of the drugs, too.

lokar 2y ago
More narrowly, a judge can’t impose an outcome or settlement on someone where the law does not allow for it.
petesergeant 2y ago
Yes, although in theory the justices are ruling on what the law means, rather than ruling on what they think it should mean for justice to be served.
robnado 2y ago
Agreed, they should be made an example of. Everyone involved in the fraud of getting this medication approved and then marketed to millions of people should face a fair trial and should be made an example of if found guilty. There is no reason that this medication should have been approved or marketed the way it was, especially considering what the medical community already knew about opioids and the harm they can cause.
- polotics 2y ago
  Considering the three strikes rule and other extremely punitive judgement against drug offenders, how are the sacklers still not in solitary?
- ensignavenger 2y ago
  The immunity deal on the table here was for civil litigation, not criminal trials. The Sackler family can still declare bankruptcy on their own, they just can't use the bankruptcy of their company to extend protection to themselves- which does make sense. But nothing that was proposed would have shielded them from criminal prosecution.
legitster 2y ago
The Sacklers were absolved of financial liability, not criminal. A DA that thought there was a strong enough case could have brought charges this whole time irrespective of the settlement agreement. > Their foundation should be dismantled and used to fund damage and mental health services for addicts of the opioid crisis that they went on to create. Part of the settlement agreement was that they were going to turn Purdue into a treatment organization. But right now it's back to the drawing board and plaintiffs will have to pursue separate and much harder cases to get reparations directly from all the individual members of the Sackler family.
- saghm 2y ago
  > The Sacklers were absolved of financial liability, not criminal I don't understand how this changes anything; why would it make any more sense for the subset of the victims who settled to absolve the Sacklers of financial liability towards to the victims who didn't settle? The type of liability doesn't change the fact that victims not part of the settlement shouldn't be restricted by the terms of it; being able to push their own case separately is the entire reason why people are allowed to opt out of class action settlements.
  - legitster 2y ago
    As the dissent pointed out, getting voluntary concessions from parties is generally considered a good outcome in bankruptcy court and part of the reason it exists in the first place. Any time you can take a million lawsuits and turn it into one saves a lot of legal fees for everyone and frees up our court system. Another thing the dissent pointed out is that anyone who doesn't participate in the group settlement is only going to get the money first-come/first-serve. In bankruptcy court you can split the money more or less evenly. If everyone litigates separately, only the people with more senior claims get their money before the funds run out.
- 7thaccount 2y ago
  Last time I looked into things, the fines they were going to pay is a tiny slap on the wrist compared to the obscene money they made. They can put the billions in an account and use just some of the interest for the fines. The biggest hit to them so far was having their name removed from some museums. Let that sink in. They've lost some slight prestige with other wealthy folks.

lokar 2y ago

More narrowly, a judge can’t impose an outcome or settlement on someone where the law does not allow for it.

petesergeant 2y ago

Yes, although in theory the justices are ruling on what the law means, rather than ruling on what they think it should mean for justice to be served.

robnado 2y ago

Agreed, they should be made an example of. Everyone involved in the fraud of getting this medication approved and then marketed to millions of people should face a fair trial and should be made an example of if found guilty. There is no reason that this medication should have been approved or marketed the way it was, especially considering what the medical community already knew about opioids and the harm they can cause.

polotics 2y ago
Considering the three strikes rule and other extremely punitive judgement against drug offenders, how are the sacklers still not in solitary?
ensignavenger 2y ago
The immunity deal on the table here was for civil litigation, not criminal trials. The Sackler family can still declare bankruptcy on their own, they just can't use the bankruptcy of their company to extend protection to themselves- which does make sense. But nothing that was proposed would have shielded them from criminal prosecution.

legitster 2y ago

The Sacklers were absolved of financial liability, not criminal. A DA that thought there was a strong enough case could have brought charges this whole time irrespective of the settlement agreement. > Their foundation should be dismantled and used to fund damage and mental health services for addicts of the opioid crisis that they went on to create. Part of the settlement agreement was that they were going to turn Purdue into a treatment organization. But right now it's back to the drawing board and plaintiffs will have to pursue separate and much harder cases to get reparations directly from all the individual members of the Sackler family.

saghm 2y ago
> The Sacklers were absolved of financial liability, not criminal I don't understand how this changes anything; why would it make any more sense for the subset of the victims who settled to absolve the Sacklers of financial liability towards to the victims who didn't settle? The type of liability doesn't change the fact that victims not part of the settlement shouldn't be restricted by the terms of it; being able to push their own case separately is the entire reason why people are allowed to opt out of class action settlements.
- legitster 2y ago
  As the dissent pointed out, getting voluntary concessions from parties is generally considered a good outcome in bankruptcy court and part of the reason it exists in the first place. Any time you can take a million lawsuits and turn it into one saves a lot of legal fees for everyone and frees up our court system. Another thing the dissent pointed out is that anyone who doesn't participate in the group settlement is only going to get the money first-come/first-serve. In bankruptcy court you can split the money more or less evenly. If everyone litigates separately, only the people with more senior claims get their money before the funds run out.
7thaccount 2y ago
Last time I looked into things, the fines they were going to pay is a tiny slap on the wrist compared to the obscene money they made. They can put the billions in an account and use just some of the interest for the fines. The biggest hit to them so far was having their name removed from some museums. Let that sink in. They've lost some slight prestige with other wealthy folks.