• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Dentons Unveils Global Consulting Venture | Main | DOJ Defends Review of Associated Press Phone Records »

May 13, 2013



Criminal penalties are also meant to punish and deter. Were a company only required to pay for the actual harm, then it could weigh the potential for getting caught and the possible monetary harm against how much cost cutting up front would still help it break even. In other words, the financial disincentive to cheating would not be sufficient to deter the bad behavior. This would be especially deleterious here where the consumer confidence in the safety of drug products is vital to the overall industry.


That's a helluva lot of moolah if you're in India!

I wonder how much the actual damage done (if any) totaled. It seems to me that fair criminal - and maybe even the civil - penalties should be measured in part by the resulting harm. Were patients left ill, or permanently injured? What were the Government's costs?

I personally would rather see the defendant make its victims whole, and spend the rest of the half-billion on free drugs for the needy in India. They could probably work a lot greater benefit to India with that sum than the USA will achieve by spending the same amount in foreign aid there.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad