This is a genuine question.
I have a hard time with this. My righteous side wants him to face an appropriate sentence, but my pessimistic side thinks this might have set a great example for CEOs to always maintain a level of humanity or face unforseen consequences.
P.S. this topic is highly controversial and I want actual opinions so let’s be civil.
And if you’re a mod, delete this if the post is inappropriate or if it gets too heated.
Jury selection question to weed out biased jurors: “Have you ever had a claim that was unfairly denied?”
Weeks later: “We have been unable to find enough jurors to try the case.”
If he gets caught, then I’d say yes. Murder should be treated as murder regardless of what the reason is. Making exceptions is never a good idea.
I just hope he doesn’t get caught.
Making exceptions is never a good idea.
Why not? The whole reason we have judicial discretion is that every crime departs from the platonic ideal in one way or another.
The working class has been losing a class war for decades without ever properly noticing that it was happening. Working Americans have been dying in that war, and now someone struck back.
I’ll be sold on the “no exceptions” ideal when we haul in the corporate murderers alongside the people who fought back.
Jury nullification is the other acceptable option.
Yeah, that’s kinda my point. The system is fucked beyond repair specifically because these people running the companies get exceptions. These people have basically let thousands of people die for the sake of money. So like I said before, murder is murder and should be treated as such.
Then all of the healthcare companies that allow people to die because they will not cover them need to be prosecuted, every executive, every decision maker.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid “dens of crime” that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice.
CS Lewis - Screwtape Letters (preface)
Why is violence legal when the government does it but not for regular people who have exhausted their peaceful options? Escalation of force gets justified all the time for cops and waging wars.
The monopoly on the use of force is quite the important part of having a state at all. If a state doesn’t have that, it descends into anarchy (the bad kind, with warlords and gangs). The US is very exceptional in this case as it has in its constitution the provision that such gangs (militia) are allowed, even desirable.
