> Tort/civil lawsuits are about being "made whole."
Only at the “modelling a cow as a perfectly thermoconducting sphere” level of analysis.
Actual damages and preliminary injunctions to preserve a situation remediable by damages are about that, other parts of what happens in civil cases are often not. E.g., punitive damages are, as the name suggests, punitive, not compensatory.
I'm unsure I follow your "modeling as a cow" analogy. Usually, that's used to show the model does not adequately reflect reality. But that doesn't hold in tort cases. Compensatory damages are the majority, by a considerable margin. According to DOJ data[1]:
- Punitive damages were awarded in only 5% of trials where the plaintiff won
- It was lower for tort cases (3%) and higher for contract cases (8%)
- It is lower in product liability and medical cases (1% each)
Those findings show that the punitive damages awarded are both relatively rare and modest. A "spherical cow model" based on compensatory damages is probably still a very good model.
Thing is, prosecutors don't want to waste their time. Someone who made whole those who lost money or other assets (or at least made a credible effort to do so) gets lower priority and lower sentencing over someone who just sharts on laws.
That one is because Trump didn't make whole anyone across his career. Not the IRS, not his creditors, not the countless people he and his various enterprises stiffed (e.g. the tradespeople who worked on the casinos [1][2]).
There's so many people who Trump and his various enterprises left stuck with sometimes very huge bills that it's a miracle he didn't get dinged years ago. And that is why Trump is being on the receiving end of the stick at the moment... he forgot one crucial point: never make too many enemies in life because eventually they will team up to get their revenge on you.
> Putin and Xinping will be laughing because they have such a strong hold on their countries, them going to jail is unthinkable.
That’s one way to look at it. Another way is to note that they’ve done a real good job of limiting their potential future options. They get to remain in power, or be exiled and live in hiding, or be dead? They’re unlikely to resign and get to live a quiet retirement, just as they’re unlikely to be jailed by their opponents?
I think that (sadly) the key distinction in the American justice system has to do with how easily it is to justify your prosecution to the public. If you're wildly popular, you're probably able to get away with quite a lot. If you're wildly unpopular, it's probably pretty easy to get a conviction on any number of things.
That's why juries suck. For some reason we pretend that even a random group of people can't have shared biases. Especially when there's a lack of evidence, it opens a jury up to judging someone based on their race, gender, appearance etc and I've seen it happen.
Justice, in its broadest sense, is the concept that individuals are to be treated in a manner that is equitable and fair. A society in which justice has been achieved would be one in which individuals receive what they "deserve"
So, what do they deserve? It's up to a panel of peers to determine. Peers, mind you, that are representative of the society you live in.
So in a sense, public outcry and court of public opinion can sway personal opinions on what is just and fair and determine what people deserve. I find the entire system malleable and ripe for corruption.
What system, in your world, is not malleable and ripe for corruption? In your world democracy would be the most malleable and corrupt while autocracy would be the least given the boundaries you laid out.
In autocratic regimes justice is usually perverted from the top (comrade district secretary calls district judge to affect proceedings - in USSR it was informally known as "phone law"), in democracies you usually need to involve wider public pressure to achieve similar results. It's definitely makes democracy better, because to sway public opinion is costlier, more visible and at least partially deliberative endeavor. But legal justice is not moral justice in any political system, and there are always ways to at least nudge legal system in a way that is more convenient for some forces.
He wasn't arrested for raising the price of his drugs, though. He was arrested for financial fraud, but none of his victims actually lost money. Very odd case.
Securities fraud is a criminal charge. It's not about someone receiving relief from some injury like a civil case. You can be charged criminally even everyone ends up better off; it's a crime against the state.
Think about this: I hijack an airplane full of people but all I do is get them to their destination faster. Everyone is better off (i.e., no material injury occurred) but I assume you'd still think I should be charged, no?
FWIW- Madoff used the same excuse that "nobody actually lost money." According to him, none of the principal was lost, it was just unrealized gains. Most people still think he should have been charged with fraud.
He said the price increase would not affect patients directly- just insurance (can’t verify).
But he would do livestreams where he said anyone without insurance or that had insurance that wouldn’t cover it could DM him and he would take care of it for them. One of my online friends was able to get the medication this way.
This is why Ross Ulbricht was doomed from the second he did that Forbes interview as “Dread Pirate Roberts” and dared the US government to come get him.
You can do a lot of illegal things and get away with it, but questioning the US government’s ability is just asking to be made an example of.
There are limited law enforcement resources and no doubt Silk Road would have gotten a bit longer reprieve, but once he poked the bear, you damn well know they said “I don’t care what it costs, I want this guy in prison for the rest of his life”.