That alleged right of criminals to be persecuted in strictly descending order of severity simply does not exist. Finding some bigger wrong does not make a right.

> That alleged right of criminals to be persecuted in strictly descending order of severity simply does not exist.

Exactly. Justice does not exist at that level of wealth, and this is a core problem in western society.

Well pointed out.

> this is a core problem in western society

Are there any societies, historical or current, where the extremely rich and powerful face justice in the way you would like, other than by pissing off other extremely rich and powerful people?

In China they say you can get away with anything as long as nobody dies.

For example, in the 2008 Chinese milk scandal, two people were sentenced to death and three received life sentences.

I did wonder whether I should include 'western' or not. I probably shouldn't have, since, I agree with your point, it's not a area that distinguishes western from non-western.

The arbitrary nature of what's become of "justice" is only magnified as the wealth gap increases.

> In my opinion the Sackler family has cause a lot more suffering and they see no day in prison.

So what? Which is it, are you in favor of a lighter sentence for Ulbricht, or a heavier sentence for the Sackler family?

To be honest I don't know, I just expect justice to do it's bidding and make the world a better place for all of us. What bothers me is that the rich get away with murder while the rest of us are held at a different standard. It also seems to me that the Sacklers' caused a lot more harm while this guy is not as evil as purported to be and doesn't disserve to be locked up for life. Should the justice be harsh for everyone I'd swallow that pill but it's not. I'm just comparing the amount of suffering caused and the received sentence. And there's no what, it's just an ordinary person's opinion, an opinion that does not change anything.

I respect where you're coming from, but here's an opinion, that if adopted, may influence where you choose to stop or continue your thought process.

I see this "comparison" form of objection quite a bit, where someone points out relative injustice without taking a stand on which way to go. Once you notice it, you start seeing it everywhere.

In terms of conversation, it almost always seems to have a muting effect, of freezing the momentum towards figuring out what should be done. Desiring consistency is honorable, but these sorts of scenarios further ask us which way we want to apply that consistency. While each individual case probably wouldn't make a difference, I think when we refuse to answer those questions as a society, it makes it more likely for these imbalances to occur. So I think it's worthwhile to try and think it through, take a stand, and voice a stand.

The Sackler's had their name stripped from museum exhibits, campuses, etc, which I'm sure hurts at the end of the day.

The US government really should have went the extra mile and stripped the Sackler family of every penny they had.. to the point that they were forced to beg for spare change on the side of the road e.g. Mortimer & Randolph Duke style.

> The bankruptcy judge acknowledged that the Sacklers had moved money to offshore accounts to protect it from claims, and he said he wished the settlement had been higher

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/01/health/purdue-sacklers-op...