Slashdot Mirror
30 Years For Online Pharmacy Spammer
jotter507 writes "So, you get arrested for running an illegal online pharmacy and the judge orders you to stop selling medication over the Internet. Don't sit around and do nothing before the trial! Run off to the Dominican Republic on a false passport, withdraw money from an account ordered frozen, and start up another online 'pharmacy.' It didn't end well for 27-year old Christopher William Smith, also known as 'Rizler.' The world-reviled spammer and Internet drug dispenser received a 30-year sentence from a federal judge on Wednesday."
As I understand it, there is no parole and time off for good behavior. This is good... very good.
Still... I wake up almost every morning hoping to see a headline about "spammer brutally murdered in his mansion." Yes, I'm sure I'm not the only one who hopes for such headlines, but my imagination goes further... I want to see something in the story stating that the cause of death was from being buried under the weight of several thousand cans of canned-meat [by-]products.
I'm sure there are more creative ideas than this, but I think the world would generally approve of this means of waste disposal.
The "interstate commerce" clause applies, to wit: stopping fraud across state lines, perpetrated in the guise of business.
Was this guy ACTUALLY selling medicine, and that in good faith? or was he running a scam?
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
How was the perp able to withdraw money from a frozen account?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
It is interesting what you say but I have to give you the other end of spectrum. I live in a country where the maximum penalty is 25 years. It really does not matter if you kill one person or 4 you will get at most 25 years.
Recently we had a case in the news where one guy killed 3 little girls, hid the evidence, tried to blame it on another guy and commited two or three more crimes, he got nailed with 25 years and the defence is appealing to try to reduce the time (unlikely, since the total time was around 60 years, even if they reduce somewhat it will still be over 25).
Now I believe, 25 years in jail is a long time. When you get out of there you sure did have some time to think about the things you've done and how to straighten up (of course, some never do). The real problem here is paroles, saw it on the news that although he got 25 years sentence, in some cases they get out on parole after 6 years, and hardly anyone gets more than 16 years or real jail time.
Now this starts to look short. So we either need to review the parole system or we need to start comulating penalties like in the US so that criminals do pay their time in jail. If one of the girls he killed was my daughter and he got out of jail in 6 years... oh boy, don't even want to imagine how I would feel and just how much I would be willing to do.
rm -rf /home/leia
.50 sniper rifle Very few (if any)Hell take a look at how many
But yeah, I guess "sniper rifle" makes it sound more scary. Better get rid of those things before they "snipe" a few more innocent pieces of paper! More FUD.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
You are suggesting a 300 year sentence? wow, how long do people live in your place?
My understanding is that in the USA, sentences can be put back to back, is that true? so if you did ten things that were worth a ten year sentence you'd get a hundred years?
If so, what's the point of issuing sentences over 75 years or so? why not just say "until you're dead, no remission"? Genuine question rather than flamebait, can anybody enlighten me to the legal thought behind what seems a bit silly on the surface. As somebody else has said, it seems a case of being hung for a sheep instead of a lamb - if you're gonig to be in prison for all your life, then you might as well commit loads more crimes. If you're gonig to jail for 100 years, then there is no incentive for soembody not to commit more crimes, surely?
This guy was scum, no question about it. And yet the ironic thing about it is that he may have really helped many people in need. Many people are suffering from severe pain, and yet are unable to legally obtain the relief which should be readily available to them. One hand, you could say that he overcharged such people and took advantage of them - but then again, he also met their needs (regardless of his intentions.)
The government's overzealous prosecution against pain medication is a far greater moral wrong than anything this guy ever did. It's true that such drugs can be abused, but innocent people should not be told they must keep suffering just because of the foolish actions of a few drug abusers.
The real problem is that there is a demand for online pharmacies from otherwise law-abiding, good citizens who are just trying to escape from pain. If you disagree, try being in pain for three months like I was, screaming and crying and unable to sleep, and yet denied medication. You'll quickly change your view.
"The purpose of punishment is not to exact vengeance -- it is to deter crimes and to comfort the victims."
Baloney. The purpose of punishment is punishment. Nothing, not a damn thing, deters crime.
If someone kills my children and the legal system fails to get vengeance, I will simply get it myself. That is another aspect to consider. Too weak punishments mean that people won't bother with the courts at all.
We can, however, make sure that he never kills anyone ever again by keeping him locked up for the rest of his life. Besides, barbaric as this may sound, I for one want vengeance on those who have wronged me or others; a murderer shouldn't get away with it.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Retaliation can take the form of exclusion as well. Most anarchisms are based upon the idea of free association; people won't want to associate with someone who doesn't play nice, which would likely end up denying the transgressor access to important infrastructure, resources, &c. They'd need to go over to some other syndicate and try their luck again, or try living in isolation without assistance.
Basically what we're talking about here is a type of compression algorithm. A person lives an average of 75 years, and for purposes of this discussion, let's assume the person is youngish, since they're more likely to commit crimes. Say 25 years. That means that a 50 year sentence is essentially the maximum useful sentence -- it is equivalent to life in prison. So the *worst* crime imaginable would map to this -- the one where you kill everyone in the world by sexually assaulting them with kittens and then peeing on their dead bodies while singing heavy metal ballads.
A proportional justice system means that anything less than this ultimate crime, should have a lesser sentence.
From there, it's just a question of how you map things -- is it linear or logarithmic with the severity of the crime (since causing a crash that injures two people is only 1/100000000 as bad as killing everyone in the world with kittens, should your sentence for doing this be only 1/100000000 as long as a life sentence, or only 1/1000?) What level of crime is sufficient that anything above it maps to life in prison? How much will that cost?
To the victim, any sentence probably seems too lenient, because the victim has been personally affected. The questions are: what is best for society as a whole, and what are we actually trying to do with imprisonment?
Fundamentalists (which I use in its original meaning) and many conservatives feel that criminality is permanent, and as such, prisons are primarily punishment, retribution, or a way of getting rid of criminals if we can't outright kill them. As a result, they tend to want very long prison sentences or the death penalty.
Progressives, and most liberals, feel that criminality is situational, and as such, prisons can be used for rehabilitation, so that once the sentence is served, with appropriate help and training, the person coming out is possibly no longer a criminal and can live a useful, productive, non-criminal life.
Basically, you have to ask yourself what you think prison is for. If it's for making people suffer for having done bad things, you're probably going to want long sentences and capital punishment. If it's for fixing broken people, you're probably going to favor shorter sentences and definitely going to favor education, job training, and self-advancement opportunities being offered in prisons. Victims of crime are naturally going to feel retributive towards the criminals who caused them suffering, and probably towards criminals in general. I personally think that one of the responsibilities of society at large is to approach crime with a neutral point of view, and make sentencing depend on what's best for society as a whole, rather than just to appease the feelings of the victim.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
And syndicates should stick together to keep free riders from benefiting from the public good of social responsibility. Make it part of the contract. If you want to join, you have to agree never to do business with anyone who does not contribute to ensuring everyone has the basic necessities of life. That, too me, is the key piece that would let social anarchism compete on a level playing field within an individualist anarchist system.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Now if the AMA would get off their asses and start cracking down on these spammers practicing medicine without either a license or that all so powerfull MD/OD that allows them to prescribe, we'd start putting many of them spammers either into prison or bankruptcy for malpractice. The final effort should be to clean up their damn ranks and start defrocking the idiots who've found it's easier to make a buck with limited risk for malpractice by writing prescriptions for people they've never seen. Hell hold them legally liable for any injury their malpractice causes.
On a closing note, so long as the pharmacy is properly licensed in the state it's based in (be it online or brick&mortar) then I have no issues with a legitimate sale so long as there is a fully legal perscription written by a real doctor. It can certainly be cheaper for long-term meds then the local RiteAid/Walgreens/Walmart while allowing to reallocate inventory space to medications that are used short term such as Antibiotics/antifungals and such.
Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown