Photo: Shutterstock.com

Courts and prosecutors have a frontline role to play in the fight against the opioid epidemic, but don't expect high-ranked officials from Big Pharma to face criminal prosecution any time soon, a group of criminal justice officials from across the country said during a panel discussion March 16.

“I wouldn't get anyone's hopes up, There's just a host of problems,” New York City's Special Narcotics Prosecutor Bridget Brennan told the audience, adding that statute of limitations issues might be the biggest hurdle in prosecuting pharmaceutical executives.

The comments came during a discussion hosted by Penn Law's Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law aimed at addressing the available criminal and civil justice responses to the opioid crisis. Along with Brennan, Delaware Attorney General Matthew Denn, Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr, chief judge of Philadelphia's Veterans Court Patrick Dugan and others were part of the panel examining what role law enforcement can play in the growing crisis.

Although the officials agreed criminal prosecutions won't likely rise to the level of the pharmaceutical companies, courts have a strong role to play when it comes to holding doctors accountable for reckless prescriptions and getting those in need into treatment. At a time when there is some discussion of decriminalizing low-level possession of certain drug-related offenses, several on the panel said the roles of the court are increasingly important.

“What is going to fill that void if we stop prosecuting them?” Dugan said. “I can be the big, older brother who is needed to be tough on them. As a court I have that hammer that perhaps a doctor or a parent has lost.”

Denn agreed, and said his office continues to press charges for possession in all but extremely low-level cases.

“The criminal justice system can be extraordinarily difficult, but in the long term, they're better off in the system,” Denn said. “It can be tougher to get well without any structure.”

The conversation was wide-ranging, and touched on, among other things, the differences in how law enforcement dealt with the crack versus opioid epidemics, new data-driven approaches to keep tabs on high-prescribing doctors, and about President Donald Trump's efforts to tackle the issue, including creating a task force and saying that drug dealers should receive the death penalty.

Carr lauded the president for speaking out publicly about the issue, and said, regardless of practicality, he could understand the sentiment behind Trump's comments regarding the death penalty for drug dealers. However, he said, more needs to be done on the part of Congress to raise money to address the issue.

Dugan agreed, saying the epidemic is draining the court's resources to the point where courts have to rely on nonprofit therapy services because there is no money for publicly funded social services.

“Talk, talk, talk,” he said. “Show us the money. We can't bring enough people in the court room. We have to rely on nonprofits. Give me more doctors at the VA.”

The issue of having the death penalty for drug dealers has recently arisen in Delaware, Denn said, noting that state lawmakers are looking to revise a law that would allow prosecutors to charge dealers for causing overdose deaths. However, Denn said, prosecutors will need to strike a balance between holding dealers accountable, while making sure that the public continues to take advantage of so-called Good Samaritan laws that give immunity to people who alert law enforcement when someone is overdosing.

During the discussion several questions revolved around holding not only doctors and dealers accountable, but also drug manufacturers and marketers. But many on the panel agreed those issues might be better addressed by the civil system and with regulatory changes that would help ensure a similar situation does not occur in the future.

“All problems can't be dealt with in the criminal context,” Brennan said.