Hacker News Reader

The death penalty, life without parole, and life with parole were never on the table. Contrary to (very) popular belief, federal prosecutors can't just make up sentences; the offenses where the death penalty can be sought are spelled out in specific statutes, and the elements of those offenses are further spelled out. You may, perhaps reasonably, believe the Sacklers are culpable for "murder", but federal murder has a legal definition (18 USC 1111, I think, for starters), and those definitions are imported into jury instructions.

A reason these kinds of things tend to get sorted out in civil court (where no sentence is on the table whatsoever) is that criminal cases are much harder to win. Criminal defendants are presumed innocent, which isn't just a platitude, but also a principle reflected in a bunch of ways in the law and rules of the court.

The state can do anything it well wants. Laws have never been much of a blocker in the long run if the US had any ambition of stamping down mass murderers who just happens to have enough money to play games in the court rooms.

There are plenty of places where people have disappeared for less, including in the US. Now, I'm not advocating anything extrajudicial here, but let's not be naive and pretend like there's nothing that could be done.

Are you advocating for some form of extrajudicial punishment here?

Yes.

Are you speaking for yourself or interpreting the GGP?

No interpretation is necessary. They said it overtly.

I don't even live in the US, so not even skin in the game. I thought it was worth mentioning that if there was a will, there would be a way. There is just isn't any will.

To elaborate, I don't think even the prosecutors went for the win here. I think they went for some kind of certainty that they could live with. And this is the result.

This was a civil case. What prosecutors are you talking about?

Thanks. I read the article now as I should have done in the beginning. It is overall very disappointing. No justice was done here.

Bernie Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison for purely financial crimes, surely the DOJ could stack up enough felonies to send the Sacklers to prison for a couple centuries? And given the tens of thousands killed by the opioid crisis and the Sacklers' vast financial resources and access to non-extraditable jurisdictions, I think it would be entirely appropriate to hold them without bail pending trial.

Madoff faced a straightforward case. He was the proprietor of the largest known Ponzi scheme in I think the history of the world. Notably: running a Ponzi scheme is already clearly a felony; no novel or even interesting theory of law was required to charge him (for Mail Fraud, Securities Fraud, Wire Fraud, and Money Laundering, among others).

Even then, the sentencing guidelines complicated things for prosecutors. None of the offenses Madoff was convicted of carried a life imprisonment sentence, but the sentencing guidelines calculations called for one, which meant he had to be charged with the statutory maximums for all his offenses.

My point isn't that the Sacklers couldn't be charged criminally, just that the rules for doing so are complicated, and prosecutors can't just make them up. A not-unlikely result of trying to secure a 150-year sentence for a Sackler is that they might simply win the case.

If you have a theory of how the Sacklers and their henchpeople could be made to face decades in prison, a straightforward way to articulate that theory would be to cite the offenses you'd see them charged with. Then we can look at the jury instructions for those offenses and see how difficult it would be to convict them under those offenses.

"We might not win" is an excuse prosecutors and politicians use to avoid cases they don't want to take. It sure is strange that this is the case for a well-connected billionaire family... I believe the Sacklers should be charged with everything the DOJ's legal experts think has a shot at success, and in the interim they should pursue asset seizure, freeze assets under AML rules, and seek to hold the defendants without bail until they can be tried. After all, what is the point of these legally questionable tactics if they are used against two-bit pot dealers yet prosecutors are too afraid to leverage them against those with actual power?

We've established these tactics and techniques are apparently legal and morally justifiable, so let's put the screws to those who truly deserve it. Worst case, maybe the Sacklers will even use some of those billions to take some of these issues to the Supreme Court and unfuck the system a little bit for the rest of us.

Ok. Say how.

I'm not familiar with NY state law but could something like negligent homicide fit the bill? They were negligent (pushing pills (either knowingly or knowing it was likely) that it would significantly contribute to an opioid epidemic) and it lead to people dying as a result (homicide).

A bunch of people have written about this. One major obstacle is that it's difficult under the law to get the Sacklers themselves convicted for actions taken random executives in the corporation, especially if (as has been written) the Sacklers were not themselves intimately involved in the operations of Purdue, but rather just the beneficiaries.

I'm not here to defend the Sacklers, who are odious. I'm just saying that there are reasons they aren't on trial for their lives, but rather having their assets attacked.

(I have no opinions about the immunity from further suit they've apparently obtained.)

I guess ultimately it does come down to legal questions but reading some of the cases against them such as this [0] it doesn't seem like there's no ammunition for prosecutors to use. For example on pages (using page numbers listed at the bottom of the page) 104-105 that the Sacklers knew of several doctors that were suspected of prescribing opioids inappropriately yet continued to sell to them. Another example on page 112 states that Sacklers knew that they were selling to an illegal pill mill yet neither stopped selling to them nor reported it for 2 years. I note that other directors and executives are also named as defendants in this case. It most certainly doesn't seem that the Sacklers weren't involved in operations of Perdue, maybe not at a day to day level but they certainly were reported to and advised by Perdue staff very regularly (and they demanded plenty from the staff too).

[0]: https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2019/01/31/Massachusett...

No, it doesn't really say that at all. It says that staff reported to the board that they suspected doctors of diverting pills. In court, prosecutors would have to prove not only that a specific Sackler knew about this, but that they intentionally directed staff to continue supplying opioids to that doctor. The Sackler, in turn, would have an array of defenses, ranging from "I expected staff to stop supplying opioids to that doctor" to "I wasn't involved in that decision but merely present at a meeting where that statistic among many was discussed". The burden in a criminal case is far higher than "preponderance of evidence".

> If you have a theory of how the Sacklers and their henchpeople could be made to face decades in prison,

"Justice will always be impossible. You should just give up and accept that great crimes will always be rewarded by billions." -you

What about felony murder? I understand it to be quite a bit broader than what you're describing (in some states anyway), and I would think it'd apply here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_and_the_death_pe...

Under the federal statute, the felony murder rule applies only in cases of arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated as part of a pattern or practice of assault or torture against a child or children.

(Or, of course, if you intended to kill people).

That's federal. I see from the wikipedia article that 47 states have felony murder laws, and their requirements vary widely by states. I think it's a fair assumption that the Sacklers committed felonies in one or more states.

This brings me back to: I don't really understand the extent of this deal. Apparently 15 states have agreed to it. Does that mean that they've granted immunity to criminal prosecution in those states?

I just did some legwork for this thread. It's your turn. Go find the state felony murder law that would fit the fact pattern of a Sackler case.

I clearly don't understand this case, this deal, or the laws well enough for that. But what I do understand is: it seems like our government has given up on pursuing consequences for people who have done this and on deterring others from doing this again. The Sacklers seem to have broken a lot of laws in a lot of jurisdictions with a lot of evidence and unbelievable harm, so it's very difficult for me to believe nothing could be done.

What makes it seem like they’ve broken a lot of laws in a lot of jurisdictions with a lot of evidence?

Nobody here is claiming the Sacklers are good people, but being evil isn’t a crime. Nobody here seems to be able to point to a law they’ve broken and not been charged under.

I'd like to point out that many of the atrocities committed by the Nazis in the early 1940s were not, under their own laws, considered criminal. Nevertheless, it was possible to punish them (rather, a select handful who were egregious enough and also not directly useful enough to the prosecuting nations to recruit, but that's another point) for crimes against humanity.

Broadly speaking, the legal framework is there. Its the legal willpower that is lacking.

They weren't tried under their laws. Their laws were irrelevant once they were conquered. We haven't been conquered; the rule of law prevails; they'll be charged under our laws.

Let's say that's true. Even though they gained billions through actions that they knew would kill people, and half a million people died, there's no applicable law so they face no real criminal consequences. Oh well. Fool me once, shame on you. That's very difficult for me to accept, but let's say I do just for the sake of argument.

Where are the legislators crafting new laws that specifically spell out that you'll go to prison for the rest of your life if you misrepresent the effects of medication to the FDA and doctors in a way that causes this much harm? Or do we really think the exact same thing won't happen again?

No, we should probably pass laws like that. We don't appear to have them now, in the shape that you want, though, and the pesky part of "the rule of law" is that we can't JIT the law.

Little known exception to the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws is it doesn't apply if we really don't like the guilty party.

> state gave up...the death penalty. Life without parole. Life with parole. Long sentences. Any sentences.

Did it? This settles the Sacklers’ civil claims. I don’t think you can discharge criminal liability in bankruptcy court.

> > state gave up...the death penalty. Life without parole. Life with parole. Long sentences. Any sentences.

> Did it? This settles the Sacklers’ civil claims. I don’t think you can discharge criminal liability in bankruptcy court.

I'm confused on that point. What you're saying makes sense but the article mentions "a bankruptcy deal with Purdue Pharmaceuticals that allows the Sackler family to avoid criminal prosecution," suggesting otherwise.

[edit: and that 15 states have signed on in some way adds to the plausibility of consequences of this deal extending beyond bankruptcy decisions.]

The death penalty would be laughed out of the court. I can present you with just one argument that would seal the deal, and it's in the form of a Socratic question: when in the several decades have we not understood that opiates (as painkillers, I am not talking about Loperamide although one could make that case as well) are often addictive?

You know it. I know it. Every doctor knows it. Every nurse knows it. Some people just have problems with that whole arena of medications, and we stopped selling laudanum at the corner store some time ago. OxyContin not addictive -- whom are you trying to kid? Everyone just nudged and winked each other, then wrote the scripts. The culpability is diffuse. Everyone going "Shucks golly, we had no idea!" is not convincing.

They made it, but we all bought it: hook, line and sinker. And we wanted to. And we knew better.

This is only because "drugs" and "tobacco" are different and distinct categories.

Tobacco use kills >7x as many people in the US every day/week/month as all opiate overdoses.

I hate tobacco, and don't get me started on last century's Big Tobacco debacle, but at least in this century the people who choose to start using tobacco should know what they are getting into.

Many of the people who started on legally prescribed opioids didn't know how addictive and dangerous they were, and the Sacklers are responsible for that.

I find it hard to believe that any adult that knows smoking is dangerous and addictive doesn't know that opiate prescription pain pills are addictive and dangerous.

In this case, they were intentionally misrepresenting the risk of addiction to doctors: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2622774/

If your doctor tells you it's safe and non-addictive and will ease your suffering, I'm willing to bet you'll believe them.

I wonder how much of this overall problem in society is a result of this misinformation they spread via the sales channel, and how much is just that opiates are super fucking addictive (regardless of what you do or don't know about them beforehand).

This is completely irrelevant, and detracts from the issue at hand. You could see precedent from a non-settlement in the case of opioids bend back around and open up the avenue for meaningful tobacco reform.

That all just got sacrificed.

I believe this ratio would be smaller if you count opportunity cost: drugs kill more younger people.