Summary
Vietnam’s High People’s Court upheld the death sentence for real estate tycoon Truong My Lan, convicted of embezzlement and bribery in a record $12 billion fraud case.
Lan can avoid execution by returning $9 billion (three-quarters of the stolen funds), potentially reducing her sentence to life imprisonment.
Her crimes caused widespread economic harm, including a bank run and $24 billion in government intervention to stabilize the financial system.
Lan has admitted guilt but prosecutors deemed her actions unprecedentedly damaging. She retains limited legal recourse through retrial procedures.
Any fans of George Carlin here? Remember his bit about the death penalty saying that he would rather have it be done not to poor violent criminals like gangsters and common idiotic murderers, but would rather have it done to the people who really and truly fear death… like major league white collar criminals.
Gang members live violent lives and often don’t have optimistic views for the future, so they know that any day might be their last. A wealthy ass failson of super millionaires who prides himself on fucking over thousands of people every day and is almost pleased to see lawsuits coming in for stolen wages and sexual harassment, however, is confident that they will die free and wealthy and probably have some active organizations named after them.
So the death penalty for them, especially when are forced to spend their time awaiting it in some cold, damp and dirty cell with prison guards who were born in poverty and treat them no differently than some poor drug-addicted shoplifter, is a terrifying concept. Also what needs to happen is that ALL their assets are confiscated. I mean ALL of them. No loopholes for transferring that shit overseas or ‘technically it’s in my wife’s/Son’s name’ bullshit. They get nothing. Their family gets nothing and will be, at best, a middle class family with middle class prospects going forward (no more failsons from that lineage).
This would be the best punishment for any billionaire. They die, get buried in a potter’s field or prison graveyard like common thugs, and their legacies smashed.
I think this case is closely watched by the elites who it may concern. Especially the social reaction. I am waiting for them to spin it like “Communist Dictatorship Vietnam” in conservative media (if it gains mainstream traction).
In all honesty, the enlightenment revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries needed to bring this change about. To hold the wealthy to much higher standards than the poor. If that did happen, we wouldn’t be living in the capitalist hellscape that is today.
Very cool
This thread in a nutshell:
I’m against the death penalty, but/except/unless…
Well, then you’re not against it, are you? People who are pro death penalty also have their limits from which point forward they believe death penalty to be justifiable. If you have an exception, you are pro-death penalty.
And to all the “revolutionaries” in these comments:
My Disillusionment in Russia, by Emma Goldman (Afterword):
There is no greater fallacy than the belief that aims and purposes are one thing, while methods and tactics are another. (…) All human experience teaches that methods and means cannot be separated from the ultimate aim. The means employed become, through individual habit and social practice, part and parcel of the final purpose; they influence it, modify it, and presently the aims and means become identical. (…) Psychologically and socially the means necessarily influence and alter the aims. (…)
No revolution can ever succeed as a factor of liberation unless the MEANS used to further it be identical in spirit and tendency with the PURPOSES to be achieved. (…) It is the herald of NEW VALUES, ushering in a transformation of the basic relations of man to man, and of man to society. It is not a mere reformer, patching up some social evils; not a mere changer of forms and institutions; not only a re-distributor of social well-being. It is all that, yet more, much more. (…)
To-day is the parent of to-morrow. The present casts its shadow far into the future. That is the law of life, individual and social. Revolution that divests itself of ethical values thereby lays the foundation of injustice, deceit, and oppression for the future society. The means used to prepare the future become its cornerstone.
If you are a leftist that imagines/wishes a future with no government oppression, sponsored killing, and violence; and if you claim to be pro rehabilitation instead of punishment, you should not be celebrating capital punishment.
Leftist with lofty goals still have to settle - This is the real world, and far from an idealized utopia. We can step into the light while still recognizing we’re walking in the shade. Pro-rehabilitation folks still can believe that not all people can be rehabilitated. Capital punishment may sometimes be the only fitting remedy for civilization, if not just for the punished. There will always be evil in the world who aren’t capable of rehabilitation without some form of violence and punishment - Some crimes and criminals are beyond what the sane and just can fathom.
Pro-rehabilitation folks still can believe that not all people can be rehabilitated.
If we were talking hypotheticals I might agree, but like you said this is the real world and a question remains: who decides who is incapable of rehabilitation? People who have committed murder (which I personally would classify as the worst type of crime - taking away someone’s entire life) have been rehabilitated before, and completely changed their lives and become productive members of society. Plus, the same goal could be achieved with permanent incarceration, and at least then they have a chance of being released if we ever find there was a miscarriage of justice.
Some crimes and criminals are beyond what the sane and just can fathom.
But who gets to decide who that? Who are the “sane and just” who will draw the line? In Texas, USA, the “sane and just” decided you should get the death penalty if you murder a “peace officer”. And off course by “peace officer” we know they mean the type of people who kill children and people’s dogs; but if anyone were to kill one in self-defence a court would probably still convict them of murder.
Any Communist knows that this future is not possible until money is no longer a necessity. As long as money exists, there will be those that exploit it to control and oppress those with less than. Capital punishment is necessary to end this exploitation. That being said, they’re giving her a choice, pay back $9 billion or die. Pretty simple. She has an opportunity to not die.
Any Communist knows that this future is not possible until money is no longer a necessity.
We make money a necessity, and so no, “any communist” doesn’t know that because it isn’t true. You clearly have a very limited and ignorant view of communism and communists. The person I quoted was an anarchist-communist, and I feel like “any communist” should know that.
That being said, they’re giving her a choice, pay back $9 billion or die. Pretty simple. She has an opportunity to not die.
Unless I’m missing something: they are the state, they can just seize her assets and put her in prison, there’s no reason for killing.
Tell me about your view on abortion. Not okay from conception or okay until 18 years of age? What a bullshit false dichotomy. It is possible to say I support something to this point. That doesn’t make you pro this or anti that. Nuance does exist.
It’s not called a false dichotomy; it’s called taking a firm stance, and speaking the language properly and clearly.
Pro-lifers think abortion is bad at any point; pro-
lifersabortionists are people who think abortion is okay to a certain point. People who are pro capital punishment only want it in certain scenarios; people who are anti capital punishment don’t want it at all.If you say you are “pro capital punishment in certain scenarios”, then you support the death sentence; end of. Saying you’re “anti but (…)” is like saying “I’m anti-abortion/pro-life except for the first 3 months or in special circumstances”.
That doesn’t make you pro this or anti that.
Then don’t claim to be anti this or that when you’re not? I was quite specific in that I was talking to people who say they are “anti” when they are not.
You can say “I’m anti x except in y circumstance.” You just can. You saying this prevents you from being anti that thing is just foolish in my view. Saying I’m anti abortion or anti choice in some cases are both things that can be both said and believed. That’s the point.
And to say that one is either absolutely anti or not anti at all is a false dichotomy. It is possible to be anti anything to some extent along a gradient.
To be clear, I’m against capital punishment on the grounds that governments regularly convict innocent people. But I also don’t think the law should protect people with some amount of wealth.
Did they mention abortion before the edit?
If they’re willing to not kill this person, then don’t, she’s no use to anyone dead. Confiscate everything she has, and garnish all her future earnings. How can she pay her debt if they kill her?
To send a message that you do not fuck with millions of people.
The death penalty as deterence doesn’t work if your intended group are impoverished, desperate people, but I am confident that it will work if it is the super rich. Historically only the poor where executed for stealing stuff, the wealthy had safeguards for their modes of theft. This needs to be fully reversed.
It doesn’t act as a deterant. Many studies back this up. Your confidance is mispleced and simply reflects your violent personality.
It doesn’t act as a deterrent due to the crimes it’s used as a punishment for - no punishment stops a mentally Ill serial killer, someone in mindless rage acting on impulse, or someone who is certain they will never get caught. The studies all agree with that.
But if you would get sentences to life in prison or death from a parking violation or not paying your taxes, there would be zero people doing them as both are conscious actions, and definitely not worth the risk.
I’m fundamentally against capital punishment. This could be an acceptable exception though.
Eat the rich!
So not fundamentally, then.
It’s okay, billionaires aren’t real people.
My personal take on the death penalty is a bit more nuanced than most people’s, in that I support it for desk-perpetrators who commit crimes against international humanitarian law (crimes against humanity, starting a war of aggression, …) or dismantle/overthrow democracies. Desk perpetrator here means that the person cannot just participate in physical action but has to be a decision maker using institutional power. This should ideally be handed out by the ICC and no other court.
If I use this model, it tells me that the death penalty here is not justified: I’m not convinced that the bank she led had enough power to qualify as giving her sufficient institutional power to qualify and even if it did, theft and bribery are not crimes against humanity.
But yeah, I’m not going to cry if they go through with it anyways.
This should ideally be handed out by the ICC and no other court.
The main problem with any type of capital punishment is that it relies on an unbiased court system with reaching powers. The ICC has a pretty well established history of really only being able to prosecute criminals from impoverished nations.
If the ICC did execute war criminals, it would be an “international” court that almost exclusively executed people of color.
Obviously I believe that the rome statute needs to be signifiantly extended and the ICC should for starters receive flat out universal jurisdiction: A big reason for why so few western people have been charged at it (though: Netanjahu and Puttler are now on the list!) is that a lot of the stuff that could be charged at it happened between nations that were not members of the ICC, meaning that it lacked jurisdiction. Now obviously all the responsible government-members of the “coalition of the willing” should be charged for the crime of aggression, and it is extremely disappointing that they aren’t, but since then the fact of the matter is that most of the rich states that are members have reasonably functional criminal justice systems and largely refrained from severe enough crimes that they would fall under ICC-jurisdiction.
Also: Even today you can also turn it around and say that it first and foremost gives justice to victims of color. Which is arguably much more important than the skin-color distribution of the genocidal trash that the convict! On that note, it bears mentioning that there is no right to get away with crimes just because others do!
Obviously I believe that the rome statute needs to be signifiantly extended and the ICC should for starters receive flat out universal jurisdiction: A big reason for why so few western people have been charged at it (though: Netanjahu and Puttler are now on the list!) is that a lot of the stuff that could be charged at it happened between nations that were not members of the ICC, meaning that it lacked jurisdiction.
Right, but even when people like netanjahu are charged by the ICC, the wealthy European members states fail to enforce their convictions.
Even today you can also turn it around and say that it first and foremost gives justice to victims of color. Which is arguably much more important than the skin-color distribution of the genocidal trash that the convict!
I think that’s kinda europe patting themselves on the back for “solving” an issue they often caused in the first place. I don’t think putting retired African war criminals on trial is very meaningful when that war criminal was empowered by European colonialism in the first place.
On that note, it bears mentioning that there is no right to get away with crimes just because others do!
Eh… I think that’s highly reductive. If I made the same claims about about the systemic racism in American policing would you be defending the American justice system?
Would you interpret that the American justice system is giving justice to POC when they arrest POC because they are the most victimized segment of our society? That ignores the systemic nature of how the victimization occurred in the first place.
At the end of the day, it’s not really a justice system if certain segments of society are immune from penalties being applied to only the disadvantaged participants. At some point it’s just a tool utilized to negate the competition from practicing the same crimes that others have utilized to achieve their position on the global scale.
Obviously I believe that the rome statute needs to be signifiantly extended and the ICC should for starters receive flat out universal jurisdiction: A big reason for why so few western people have been charged at it (though: Netanjahu and Puttler are now on the list!) is that a lot of the stuff that could be charged at it happened between nations that were not members of the ICC, meaning that it lacked jurisdiction.
Right, but even when people like netanjahu are charged by the ICC, the wealthy European members states fail to enforce their convictions.
That has not happened yet. It may happen, but let’s not accuse them of things they haven’t done yet.
Even today you can also turn it around and say that it first and foremost gives justice to victims of color. Which is arguably much more important than the skin-color distribution of the genocidal trash that the convict!
I think that’s kinda europe patting themselves on the back for “solving” an issue they often caused in the first place. I don’t think putting retired African war criminals on trial is very meaningful when that war criminal was empowered by European colonialism in the first place.
It was still them committing the war crimes. Let’s not pretend that Africans are somehow infantile children who are not responsible for their own actions. And the European involvement in those cases is usually also far more removed than that accussation makes it seem.
On that note, it bears mentioning that there is no right to get away with crimes just because others do!
Eh… I think that’s highly reductive. If I made the same claims about about the systemic racism in American policing would you be defending the American justice system?
The sorry excuse for a justice system that the US has is for many reasons a whole different can of worms. To make it short: The issues with white people getting away with shit more often than black people (and I’m not convinced that that is as much a problem if we are talking about homicides, a handful of very high profile cases not withstanding the general trend) doesn’t mean that the solution is to let black people get away with first degree murder. The issue is that white people can get away with shit, not that black people can’t!
Would you interpret that the American justice system is giving justice to POC when they arrest POC because they are the most victimized segment of our society? That ignores the systemic nature of how the victimization occurred in the first place.
That is a completely different situation. A better analog would be if the federal police investigated murders happening in predominantly black communities more often than murders in predominantly white communities, pointing out that they are more common and that the local police forces seem to put more efforts into it in the later cases, making outside intervention less necessary. And yeah, if that was what was happening, it would indeed not be racist but completely justified.
The problem is that that is not what is happening in the US, but it is kinda what is happening within the countries that ratified the Rome statute.
At the end of the day, it’s not really a justice system if certain segments of society are immune from penalties being applied to only the disadvantaged participants. At some point it’s just a tool utilized to negate the competition from practicing the same crimes that others have utilized to achieve their position on the global scale.
They are not immune though: The justice system is fully prepared to treat them like everyone else, the problem is that sometimes it doesn’t have jurisdiction (when something happens between non-member countries) or where you have to be concerned about whether corrupt cops are willing to let the criminal go despite an arrest warrant.
Yes, a lot of the west can be very hypocritical and the US is often absolutely awful, but it is really important to still look at who is on the other side and not to get blinded by accusations of hypocrisy, which is really just another form of whataboutism that in this case is even more inappropriate than in most others.
That has not happened yet. It may happen, but let’s not accuse them of things they haven’t done yet.
Frances foreign minister has already claimed that he’s immune from prosecution…
It was still them committing the war crimes. Let’s not pretend that Africans are somehow infantile children who are not responsible for their own actions.
Lol, great choice of language there… I would like to point out those are your words, not mine.
Also, weren’t you the one claiming that the “desk” perpetrators should be the ones executed. I guess that sentiment ends conveniently with the warlord and not the people who enable them?
I’m not claiming they don’t hold blame, I’m just saying that the governments whom caused the material conditions for a a warlord to rise to power hold that same responsibility. In a lot of cases these warlords are sponsored by Western nations trying to destabilize governments that politically align against them.
And the European involvement in those cases is usually also far more removed than that accussation makes it seem.
the European involvement in those cases is usually also far more removed than that accussation makes it seem.
Weird, it’s almost like the ICC only prosecutes the crimes of people that oppose western geopolitical agenda. Curious.
The sorry excuse for a justice system that the US has is for many reasons a whole different can of worms.
I beg to differ. It’s a very similar asymmetrical hierarchical structure that allows people in power to enforce rules on people who don’t have power, for engaging in the same crimes as the people in power.
To make it short: The issues with white people getting away with shit more often than black people (and I’m not convinced that that is as much a problem if we are talking about homicides
"Black people were six times more likely to be arrested for homicide in 2020 than white people. " “According to the FBI, 55.9% of homicide offenders were African-American, 41.1% were white, and 3% were of other races.”
Sure…not a big problem.
doesn’t mean that the solution is to let black people get away with first degree murder. The issue is that white people can get away with shit, not that black people can’t!
I never made that claim, I just said that it’s not really a justice system if one race is allowed to do crimes and other races are not.
That is a completely different situation.
Why? Because it’s damaging to your argument?
A better analog would be if the federal police investigated murders happening in predominantly black communities more often than murders in predominantly white communitie
I think a better analog would be that the government came up with a an entire new justice system that only investigated crimes committed by black people… While local police continue ignoring the crimes committed by white people.
The problem is that that is not what is happening in the US, but it is kinda what is happening within the countries that ratified the Rome statute.
White savior moment…
They are not immune though: The justice system is fully prepared to treat them like everyone else, the problem is that sometimes it doesn’t have jurisdiction (when something happens between non-member countries) or where you have to be concerned about whether corrupt cops are willing to let the criminal go despite an arrest warrant.
Lol, sure. I’m sure the foreign minister of France is sticking their necks out for a genocider from Kenya…
Please, name one white person who the ICC has put in jail. Hell, name 1 white person who the ICC has prosecuted before 2020. At the end of the day the ICC is a political body of countries whom have geopolitical agenda, and are willing to turn a blind eye when it suits them.
but it is really important to still look at who is on the other side and not to get blinded by accusations of hypocrisy, which is really just another form of whataboutism that in this case is even more inappropriate than in most others.
My friend, I’m not saying that warlords shouldn’t be prosecuted. I’m just pointing out that the ICC is not a non biased judicial system, at least not to the point where id trust them with the ability to prescribe capital punishment.
Pointing out hypocrisy is not a whataboutism. I never once validated crimes of anyone’s crimes because other crimes occurred that were not policed. My original rebuttal still stands true, the ICC isn’t non biased enough to prescribe death warrants.
Frances foreign minister has already claimed that he’s immune from prosecution…
Which is disgusting, but we will see what happens when it actually happens and in any case the fault of France, not of the ICC.
Also, weren’t you the one claiming that the “desk” perpetrators should be the ones executed. I guess that sentiment ends conveniently with the warlord and not the people who enable them?
What makes you think that? If you want to hear me say that Kissinger should have been sentenced to be burned at the stakes, I have zero reservations to give you that.
In a lot of cases these warlords are sponsored by Western nations trying to destabilize governments that politically align against them.
Please name reasonably recent examples, preferably ones where it is not the US doing it. You can talk about a lot of meddling, but it is really not a common thing of the current west supporting warlords against even remotely legit governments. And the goal is usually very much not destabilization, even if that may be the effect. When we are talking about criminal law, intention matters.
I beg to differ. It’s a very similar asymmetrical hierarchical structure that allows people in power to enforce rules on people who don’t have power, for engaging in the same crimes as the people in power.
And the ICC is kinda doing the opposite. Really not comparable, as I said.
Sure…not a big problem.
Fair, but again: I’m not super interested in the US, because we already know that it is a shithole country.
I never made that claim, I just said that it’s not really a justice system if one race is allowed to do crimes and other races are not.
But that’s the thing:
Lol, sure. I’m sure the foreign minister of France is sticking their necks out for a genocider from Kenya…
Please, name one white person who the ICC has put in jail.
That’s an unfair standard, considering that the ICC has so far sentenced 8 (EIGHT!) people from 2 (TWO) case-groups to prison, both of which concerned civil wars in Africa.
Hell, name 1 white person who the ICC has prosecuted before 2020.
First of all excluding all the white people that they charged since then in three case groups (Georgia, Russia, Israel) is something that you would have justify.
And who should they have prosecuted? Blair obviously (and they did infect investigate it!), but other than that I don’t see many obvious candidates that are very clearly missing over whom the court has jursidiction. The thing is: Since the Iraq-war most European countries neither had large civil wars, nor did they really participate in other wars that were not UN-sanctioned.
The fact of the matter is that they are doing more in Africa simply because Africa has a lot of civil wars that involve a significant amount of particularly illegal forms of warfare such as child-soldiers. So yes, there are more war-crimes in unstable regions.
At the end of the day the ICC is a political body of countries whom have geopolitical agenda, and are willing to turn a blind eye when it suits them.
I guess that is why it went against most of those countries and prosecuted Netanjahu?
Like: It’s actually pretty clear at this point that they are acting increasingly as an independent and neutral instance.
My friend, I’m not saying that warlords shouldn’t be prosecuted. I’m just pointing out that the ICC is not a non biased judicial system, at least not to the point where id trust them with the ability to prescribe capital punishment.
But you can’t argue that based on what other countries are saying whom they are going to extradite. The ICC is independent, that’s the whole point!
Pointing out hypocrisy is not a whataboutism. I never once validated crimes of anyone’s crimes because other crimes occurred that were not policed. My original rebuttal still stands true, the ICC isn’t non biased enough to prescribe death warrants.
Who should then prosecute those crimes that are otherwise not accessible to prosecution? The ICC only gets active if there is no serious attempt at prosecution in the country itself!
I’m against the death penalty. I have many objections to it. though if the person at hand is a billionaire all but one of my objections disappear.
the one remaining is that I’d rather not have the government have the power to kill its citizens. so I’m willing to accept life sentences and forfeiture of all assets instead. mind that the crime I’m talking about here is being a billionaire.
These god-damn violent tankies. Vietnam should have just fined her a much smaller amount than the corrupt practices made them, like how the West handles corrupt oligarchs.
Seriously. If she was born in the West, she’d be on the cover of Forbes and taking photos next to celebs.
No… A closer comparison shows that she would be like Sam Bankman-Fried with a 25 year sentence and ordered to repay $11 billion. Although she probably would end up on a cover of Forbes.
Bankman Fried didnt steal just from the people. He stole from other billionaires.
“You didn’t just steal from people, you had to go and steal from people who had a lot of money and THAT crosses a LINE!”
–American justice system
Nice false dichotomy.
It’s sarcasm
deleted by creator
Ban wealth hoarding.
I don’t support the death penalty, but I won’t be terribly sad if a criminal billionaire gets executed by their own government.
I fully support it for the rich and powerful just because prisons can’t reliably hold them. If they’re not put in the ground, they’ll worm their way out of consequences eventually.
Can I ask what’s the cutoff? How much money/how high of a position qualifies you for the electric chair?
I’d say if you can comfortably afford to live your life without ever once checking a bank balance.
Higher than you’ll ever have to worry about.
I’m not worried lol I’m poor. I’d like a number cause if you’re for death penalty, you should’ve thought long and hard through all the details.
Cause you know. It’s about killing people.
0.01-0.1 % net wealth to the nations GDP seems a good cutoff imo. For the US that would be 2.9-29 billion. For Vietnam that would be 47 million - 470 million.
About tree-fiddy
Gonna need a really good “Go Fund Me”
Bring this shit to the US. Chop chop.
They defrauded 12 billion, only have to pay 9? Sounds like they just made 3 billion.
Return 3/4 of what was stolen to get execution downgraded to life imprisonment that’s not getting away with it.
That said, my general opposition to the death penalty does influence me here.
If these fucks face a realistic prospect of getting their heads chopped off? Sure, let 'em roll those dice.
We now have precedent y’all
Two things America loves: billionaires and the death sentence. It has just never thought to combine them in this way.
I don’t care for billionaires or the death sentence.
If we revised the system I could be okay with the death sentence in some situations but the way it is now makes absolutely no sense.
I am against the death penalty and would only give it consideration in the case of billionaires
I don’t trust the state to ever decide whether someone deserves to live or die.
Some vigilantes on the other hand…
Meh, I am more lax with life. I think it can easily be done more humane and much cheaper. Shit for a while there I remember reports that the drugs we used weren’t allowed to be used to euthanize pets because they were to inhumane. That said, I think anyone who gets a long sentencing should be allowed the choice. 15 years, or you chose to live 1 year in prison and then if you still agree a year later a mask with carbon monoxide would be fine for me.
We always worry we are killing innocent people, and innocent people will die this way as well, it at least was their choice though. If you do it in a decent way… Instead of it costing far more than life in prison does already right now, it could be beneficial to some people.
Then again I also think assisted suicide should be legal as well. Same sort of idea. Choice to check into a facility or live in normal life, with a set year of discussion with a therapist and at the end of that year if you still wish to be done, your done.
Or even just a sedative to knock you unconscious like at the oral surgeon, then put the mask on the person for 30 mins. They wouldn’t feel a thing and it would be cheap.
I’m 100% for assisted suicide. I don’t think anyone should have the say except the individual. I’d be happy with the plan you laid out, seems reasonable for everyone.
As far as using it as a penalty there are two reasons I’m against it:
- I want it to slowly eat at them that they were afforded a mercy that they didn’t afford others.
- I want to see to it that they live long enough to fully understand the pain and misery they caused
I honestly wish it was possible to exend a convict’s life as long as possible to see that they really do understand and finally feel the shame of their actions.
The purpose of prison ought to be reconciliation and rehabilitation, not revenge or forced contrition. Many prisoners do feel remorse for their crimes, but unfortunately recidivism is so high (in America) because our socioeconomic and judicial systems are tooled to undermine a parolee’s attempts to reintegrate into society, setting them up for failure.
Only in extreme circumstances, i.e. truly sociopathic criminals, should sentences that remove all hope of reintegration or release be issued. True sociopaths are incapable of feeling remorse, no matter how long or under whatever conditions they are kept. They do understand the weight and impact their crimes had on their victims, but they do not care. No amount of coercion will change that. In these fringe cases, I’d argue that giving them the choice between lifelong sequestration or self-inflicted suicide is ostensibly the best solution for everyone.
Sociopathic criminals aren’t to blame for how they are. They aren’t really in a position to change themselves nor have they decided to be this way.
Therefore the only punishment should be taking away their ability to harm others by limiting their freedom.
But if this is the sole punishment, I think hardly any would choose death. Why would they, if they could live a comfortable yet supervised and limited life? Key point is comfortable. That’s not what the vast majority of prisons are today which means allowing them to choose suicide is more or less a coerced death penalty if we’d just slap it onto the current system.
Nailed it
The amount of people in here pushing for the death penalty when it’s used on people they dislike is sickening…
This is a penalty that needs to be abolished, not expanded or made exceptions for.
I used to be against the death penalty. Problem is that obscenely rich and well connected people can just hire assassins to execute people they don’t like with impunity. Case in point the Boeing engineer that supposedly committed suicide briefly before his hearing on Boeings deliberate security violations leading to hundreds of people slaughtered in preventable plane accidents.
Executing the rich and powerful is necessary to level the playing field.
It’s a classic.
I’m against the death penalty, but…
There are no buts; if there’s a “but” then you’re pro capital punishment.
It’s a classic false dichotomy.
I’m against killing people, but if someone tries to kill me…
You’re right, it is a false dichotomy on your part. There’s a difference between an active threat and someone who has been arrested. We are talking about sentencing someone who is on trial, not about active self-defence. Or would you shoot someone as they are running away from you, just because they attacked you earlier?
Do you think the people who are pro death penalty want to kill people for every minor crime? Because they also just want to condemn to death the people who they believe to be morally righteous to do that to.
Fuck accountability right?
That’s not what I’m saying or implying in any way.
Revolutions aren’t pillow fights.
This is not a revolution. It’s the state killing a person. The death penalty is ALWAYS unacceptable, without expections. Do I want billionares to die? Hell yes! Do I think the state should have the power to kill people? Hell no!
So you are a more hands on type. You are fine with the killing if it’s you as a a worker class pulling the trigger.
They didn’t say that. I think it’s pretty clear what they mean. The state has a monopoly on violence. They are permitted a certain amount of force in order to keep the peace. When a government misuses that power, or oversteps to the point of deciding who gets to live or die, then it’s gone too far.
If you can’t understand the difference between a regular worker being possibly oppressed by this misuse of force, and the state apparatus itself, then I really don’t know what to tell you.
I understand that the state has a monopoly on violence. Violence IS the ultimate power to rule no matter the form of government. What you don’t understand is you can’t limit that power. Once granted, even on what might appear to be a limited basis, and it’s never limited for long, cannot be revoked. You can totally remove the power of the government to use violence and then hand that power to the populace-- but this is not a good idea. The only thing dumber than the government is the public.
The person I responded to stated plainly, they were for killing billionaires. They just didn’t want the government to do it. So he must be willing to pull the trigger himself. Which is a valid political stance. Even though I think it’s very misguided.
You have read into a plain statement something YOU believe. And if you don’t understand that, then I don’t know what to tell you either.
True, but they’re demands of a better world. There’s a difference between killing in a revolution and a 60 year old communist government executing an embezzler instead of giving her life in prison
The state ending someone’s life for breaking its laws and then having people here who would normally condemn the use of capital punishment compare it to a revolution and call it justified just because the state in question claims to be socialist is just so uniquely Lemmy.
is just so uniquely Lemmy.
Lol read a fucking book, if the left has been consistent about one thing throughout history, is constant infighting and bickering.
Nothing you’ve said is unique to Lemmy. Except maybe the part about making uninformed comments with extreme confidence.
That’s consistent across all social media!
Yea, I’m against the death penalty too. This shit shouldn’t be legal. It should be illegal and brutal. Like the mob takes you to the square and threatens to lynch you unless you give away the billionaire persona. The cops turn a blind eye. Total societal shame. Collapse of moral and legal order. And then afterwards, we all feel bad about it and we legislate a ban on wealth hoarding so that our society never falls to those kinds of depths ever again.
The fact that this comment likely isn’t satire, should be concerning.
People: please read books. That’s all I’m going to say. Read about your ideology and its bloody, storied history, before posting ignorant shit like this.
Check your knowledge of history. Revolutionary history is actually not uniquely bloody. Counter-revolutionary and/or status-quo violence has historically been just as, or even more, bloody (need I mention the countless massacres and genocides perpetrated by colonialists and imperialists? Or is it enough to mention France, Russia, China, and Cambodia to win every argument?)
That said, I am of course very very very averse to any kind of violence. The whole point of my comment is that it is a dirty, shameful thing that should never happen. The fact that it does happen is extremely unfortunate but ultimately is the fault of the status-quo boots pushing down people’s throats. There is always a non-bloody way out of an oppressive situation: stop the fucking oppressing. Lift the boot. Give up the privilege. Simple as.
Example: 1960s Quebec. The Catholic Church simply gives up its stranglehold on French-Canadian society. No anticlerical massacres follow. Everyone happy. That’s the model.
You’re completely right.
However, I feel like I’d make an exception for people who massively contribute to an actual existential threat to humanity. Ie billionaires. All billionaires.
I’m not saying we should kill them. I’m saying we should use the possibility of that being on the table to make them pay their taxes. The entire planet is ruined by billionaires when we could literally everyone have enough to have our basic needs met while having an economy and industry which isn’t on track to make the planet uninhabitable for us, seeing as it’s the only planet known to support life.
Yes, all life is important. That’s why all life should be protected by making sure the planet doesn’t become one huge airfryer. If while doing that a few billionaires get guillotined, I’m honestly fine with it. I’d prefer they’d just actually help people instead of being selfish assholes, but if them being selfish assholes is putting everyone else in danger, then the choice is clear, no matter your views on the death penalty. (Which as you say, shouldn’t be a thing.)
I dunno, reducing them to being not-billionaires and even not-millionaires would actually be a pretty just sentence IMO. I bet being reduced to a regular Joe would hurt some of them more than the death penalty
What’s to stop them doing it all over again, given some starter money? Usually what makes these assholes so effective is their lack of empathy. That works well in capitalism.
White collar crime needs to start getting hard time in the same prisons that proper criminals go to. That’d be a deterrent, or a motivator to fix the prison systems.
If they can create a law that makes them no longer billionaires, I’m sure they could figure something out to prevent them from doing it again…
The thing with billionaires is that they don’t live in any single legal framework.
Which is why it would be so crucial to actually imprison them to get them to see any sort of consequences, as otherwise they’ll just hop on a private jet and fuck off.
Literally no consequences for stealing the value of labour of hundreds of millions of people. It’s crazy.
We as humanity allow these people to exist. We could just decide we don’t. If we all do, simultaneously, and pinky-promise, then the problem would be dealt with.
But ever tried getting 8 billion people on a zoom call at the same time? Yeah…
deleted by creator
Nonsense. I oppose the death penalty for almost all crimes. It’s just too easy to render an inaccurate verdict, and you can’t undo an execution.
But we don’t have any doubt about billionaires. They’re verifiably guilty beyond any shadow of a doubt.
I also think they should be able to avoid the death penalty by giving up their wealth and living on minimum wage for a number of years equal to the number of billions they captured and withheld from society.
Why, though? The usual reasoning for abolishing the death penalty is the argument that we might make a mistake and mistakenly sentence innocent people to death. But what about crimes like this, where the crime is entirely on paper, fully documented, and with no risk that you’re prosecuting the wrong person?
Edit: I’m not sure why I’m getting downvoted with no replies. I’m asking an actual question here, if you disagree why not state your opinion?
I think it’s a valid question. I wouldn’t say that the only reason for abolishing the death penalty is because we might make a mistake… that definitely factors into it, but there’s more to it.
Ask yourself what purpose does it serve to put someone to death? They’re already in jail/prison and no longer a threat to society. Deterrence? Is the death penalty any more of a deterrence than a life sentence?
The only purpose I can think of for the death penalty is that it’s for “Revenge”. It doesn’t actually fix anything in of itself. It doesn’t resolve disputes, it doesn’t really solve anything.
Because we’ve always said that we won’t make any excuses for the terror when our turn comes.
Can you expand on this?
Either you replied to the wrong comment, or you’re clearly thinking of some context that I’m not, or it’s related to some saying that I’m not familiar with.
I want to point out that this is already the standard for conviction. The finder of fact must find the accused to be guilty beyond all reasonable doubt before convicting them. So from a legal perspective, everyone convicted of a crime already has been proven guilty to the highest possible standard. If there is any shred of doubt at all about the guilt of the accused, they’re supposed to be acquitted. It’s only possible in retrospect when new evidence emerges that exonerates the accused that it can be determined that the original guilty verdict was incorrect. You can’t really “force” this evidence to emerge with any amount of policy changes. It just happens over time.
For example, witnesses lie. Maybe five years after the fact they feel bad about lying and retract their testimony. Maybe some of the investigators assigned to the case just made up some evidence to get the accused convicted in court because they just thought there was no way he could be innocent and they just needed to cook up the evidence to get them declared guilty, and they can only admit that when the statute of limitation passes. Or maybe, three years later, a convenience store manager deleting old footage happens upon a CCTV tape giving the accused an alibi. Or maybe still, the accused was actually framed and their framers only got caught ten years later doing some other crime, and it turned out that they forged the accused’s signatures on those documents and used their computer to send those e-mails without their knowledge. I could go on.
So if your proposed standard is applied, it would not actually exclude anyone from execution because everyone who’s been convicted has already been proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.
So if your proposed standard is applied, it would not actually exclude anyone from execution because everyone who’s been convicted has already been proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.
Someone better tell Texas
Well fuck billionaires but papers can and trials can be wrong.
Like who’s to say she wasn’t a patsy?
I’m not saying she was, but how would you prove beyond any doubt that she wasn’t?
Probably this case is an open-and-shut case but my point is valid, I think.
Full support dude.
But what about crimes like this, where the crime is entirely on paper, fully documented, and with no risk that you’re prosecuting the wrong person?
This point rests my case.
Seems to be a common mindset among americans. As european I don’t understand it.
Pearl clutching liberals? Not once.
