Why bother? I have multiple immediate family members that were affected and who aren't capable of coming back from it; I don't think they should get a reward if it means the Sacklers aren't pushed down with them. Doubly so given very few people will be getting anything, anyway.
There is no acceptable punishment for a crime of this scale that doesn't adequately deter future criminals. Billions in rewards isn't just inadequate, it's disrespectful to every victim and their families.
>There is no acceptable punishment for a crime of this scale that doesn't adequately deter future criminals.
Well this is just a self-justifying statement. "Acceptable," "adequately," so many ways to weasel out of assigning any consequences. Let's just discuss how adequate a hypothetical punishment will be in the future that we both definitely know facts about.
>Billions in rewards isn't just inadequate, it's disrespectful to every victim and their families.
Disrespectful to remedy the loss of one or more breadwinners? Disrespectful to prevent descendants from firing up the corporate grill again? I don't know what ethical standard you're using, but it seems to elevate suffering and misfortune.
Disgorgement and prison, the facts bear this out. That they were able to buy their way out of this is more evidence that the nation strives to protect criminals who have money and are white.
No acceptable punishment, maybe not, however, fear can go a long way! Actual fear of _really_ losing all their family wealth, basically everything but the shirt on their back with a lifetime of hard labor to follow is probably a scarier proposition to these kind of scum then death is. On that note, hanging some of them from the rafters may also help deter this kind of parasitic behavior going forward.
