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.
It was justice because he can no longer harm others.
There was zero chance he was ever going to pay for shit before, so nothing has changed after.
Likewise his assets can still be seized after death, but like previously mentioned it was never going to happen, so it’s irrelevant.
Justice could have been greater, forcing him to spend his life in restitution. This is an acceptable (and actually likely to happen) form of it.
Sure but he, alone, was not the one who harmed his patients. Realistically, he’s probably never even seen a patient’s file and likely couldn’t identify one if you asked him to. While he was the CEO and officially signs off on what the company does, the company is much more than just him. He will be replaced, and easily; likely before next week is even over. And everybody who enabled him and followed him and carried out his orders will continue to conduct the company as they have before.
IMO, justice for victims involves a positive effect; either through policy reform, repayments, etc. The victims aren’t suddenly going to get their claims approved now; they’re in the same situation today as they were yesterday. This is a wholly lateral move for them.
Claim denials went up something like 17% under his 3 year tenure. He absolutely personally had blood on his hands.
While this won’t do much to right the wrongs, it’s a very clear message to the upper classes that people are angry and not on their side.