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.