QFT.

I'm not sure if this is an indication of a sadistic mindset, or cowardice. I cannot call it ignorance.

I guess we're back to the use of torture is OK, so long as its not used against IS terrorists throwing gay folks off of buildings or burning them alive in cages, but instead on the CEO of ExxonMobil -- that MoFo definitely deserves to be waterboarded in GitMo, right?

Would it not be less cruel to execute the person, instead of putting them in a hole in the ground for solitary confinement for 50 years? Are you simply a coward and don't want to have an execution on your own conscious?

Or is cruelty really your goal and you are a sadist?

What happens when solitary confinement doesn't solve the problems? Should we ratchet up the torture techniques?

Why would you think that the threat of execution isn't an effective deterrent, but facing a lifetime of torture is? Even if you could argue that threat of torture is more effective then threat of death; Why would you choose that option? What does it say about your own humanity?

Threat of an ugly public execution would be a wonderful deterrent for people who respond well to deterrence. Rich people hire legions of experts to help them understand exactly how deterred they should be by every single individual statute. When you're dealing with people who are going to model the cost of a human life on a spreadsheet all you have to do to make them stop doing stuff is change the numbers they are plugging into the formula.

You're actually defending the fact that the Sacklers are still living lives of obscene luxury while their victims die by the tens of thousands a year? What is it about rich people experiencing justice for their crimes that triggers your sense of fair play?

WRT the top 1% of the top 1% of the top 1% it's 100% about deterrence.

Have the Sacklers been convicted of anything yet?

Or are you just trumpeting "guilty until proven innocent"?

Maybe something you should check out.

Hardcore History 61 – (BLITZ) Painfotainment

.... And nobody cares what you think anymore. Your credibility just went to zero lol. Do some actual research before running your mouth about 'innocent until proven guilty'. Those people have killed more Americans than we've lost in every foreign war since WW2 + 9/11 *4 and that's literally public record. We have the emails where they were deciding to do it.

We're up to our third 5 year old child killed in the last half of June here in Milwaukee.

Two of them are an argument for the complete removal of guns from America, I'll give you that. One found his dad's gun and shot himself in the head. Another man left a gun on his bed while just chilling in his room smoking pot when his little brother came in and started playing with it, when the older brother went to take the gun, it went off. The child was just dumped at a nearby hospital and they took off.

Then there's the third child, who was killed by his father on Father's Day because the kid ate dad's cheesecake.

Do these people all get the book thrown at them because all actions resulted in death? Would they get a complete pass due to economic circumstances if any of these three kids had survived?

I'm not familiar with all of the details about the Sacklers and what they did that would justify criminal charges and physical torture in your mind, but people have been overdosing on drugs long before Oxycontin existed, and it does have real value as a product for pain treatment. If you're looking to hold corporate overlords accountable for wrongful deaths due to misuse of their products, might I direct your attention to the alcohol industry as well?

I saw my mom last night and she told me that my 16 year old step-cousin was taken advantage of by her 27 year old manager at work and what was supposed to just be a hookup in a motel room turned into her being revived by paramedics with NARCAN after an OD and she's now heading to rehab and then to live in South Dakota with her grandparents on a ranch. Do I blame the Sacklers, or the ****bag who tried hooking up with a little girl and then fed her a dose of opioids that she wasn't prepared to handle? What if he was poor? Does he get a pass because he had a rough childhood?

I can get behind a push to stop the elite from buying their way out of trouble, but I can't understand all of this righteous indignation coming from the same crowd that gives evil people a pass just because they had a rough childhood. There are A LOT of people who grew up in ****ty circumstances and didn't turn out to be scum.

Until they are convicted in a court, they get to live as they do. If what you say is true, then the court cases should be a slam dunk.

This does not change the fact that you appear to be calling for torture.

I'm proud to run my mouth about "innocent until proven guilty".

I picked the Sacklers as my example because they are such an incredibly egregious example of desperately needed justice not being carried out. I agree that there are definitely situations where it's a grey area, and that makes my arguments problematic. The Sacklers in particular are not in the grey area. Background doesn't matter. They could have done what they did with a gun to their head and I'd still want them crucified. The right answer would have been to get shot in the face. Of course they didn't have a gun to their heads and they did it on their own for no reason other than personal gain... so that doesn't really matter.

Nobody wants to give evil people a pass. If you did something awful at the very least you need to be separated from society until we can make a solid effort at rehabilitation.

That being said there are an awful lot more people who are redeemable who we essentially just throw away in America. A personal acquaintance of mine kicked in a girlfriends door in his late teens and got 15 years in a Texas state prison for burglary. He ended up committing suicide after he got out when he realized that he had zero shot at a normal life. Seems a little bit harsh to me. People like him don't generally get the level of sympathy that you guys are giving the Sacklers of all people (seriously there were Nazi's we hung after WW2 with lower body counts and better excuses).

The reason why rich people acting badly is so infuriating is that they did what they did for no real reason other than they could get away with it. That's something you solve with deterrence. Some 19 year old kid getting too possessive and kicking in a door having his life ended is a lot less just than going full Mel Gibson torture fantasy on the Sacklers of all people.

Sounds like your pal had a trial and was convicted of a crime (which could have been a violent crime). Its terrible that he chose to take his own life, but clearly he could have lived a productive life after his conviction and imprisonment. I'm not in the business of extending sympathy to POSs that kick in their GF's door. The law, his GF and society didn't "have his life ended" -- he did.

Nazis were given a trial and were found guilty before they were hung. The important part is the trial part.

It looks like the Sacklers will face justice, be tried, and if they are found guilty, I believe they will face punishment.

You seem to have issues. I wish you luck. Try to stay out of the judicial system if you can.