The thing here is that the guy murdered here oversaw the company that he was in charge of was effectively in a sense condemning people to death, and as such in a sense he has a lot of blood on his hands whether he knows it or not. Did he personally deny claims that condemned people to death? Certainly not, but anyone who thinks that he had absolutely nothing to do with the circumstances that led to claims being denied that could've saved lives would be a naive fool at best, to a corporate bootlicker at worst.

In an ideal world, he would be in a courtroom facing a trial, but we're not in that world and quite frankly until we come into an ideal world this is the closest we're going to get to that.

This is what I said to someone who has the ideal of there should be zero reason to enact the death penalty on anyone, and to someone who also seemed receptive to more leftist thought. Reading it again, I know I definitely libbed it up in places (sadly, I'm just really used to having to really watch what I say), though I was trying to keep it concise and get the point across.