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.
If he did it to instill fear in health insurance executives as a deterrent, then that means it was an act of terror. As an act of terror, that means the murdered CEO’s life insurance company does not have to pay out. Claim denied.