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.
Common Vietnam w
🍽
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!
in any case the fault of France, not of the ICC.
Like any international body, the ICC is only as legitimate as it’s member states willingness to participate.
What makes you think that?
“Let’s not pretend that Africans are somehow infantile children who are not responsible for their own actions.” Mainly that… But it’s kinda besides the point, as you aren’t responsible for who gets prosecuted by the ICC.
Please name reasonably recent examples, preferably ones where it is not the US doing it.
“NATO powers such as the United Kingdom and the United States support the Saudi Arabian–led intervention in Yemen primarily through arms sales and technical assistance.[396] France had also made recent military sales to Saudi Arabia”
“The tribunal requested a thorough investigation as some of the evidence indicated “possible acts of genocide”.[28] Its panel found Sri Lanka guilty of genocide at its 7–10 December 2013 hearings in Berman, Germany. It also found that the US and UK were guilty of complicity.”
" 2008 report by the Rwandan government-sponsored Mucyo Commission accused the French government of knowing of preparations for the genocide and helping to train Hutu militia members."
“Since the war began, both regional and international powers have been actively involved in the conflict. A number of reports have been made alleging that China, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates were all providing military support for the Ethiopian government via the sale of weaponized drones.”
“October 2023, political analyst Lena Obermaier argued that Germany is complicit in Israel’s war crimes against Gaza.[6”
"On 12 December 2023, Human Rights Watch said that selling weapons to Israel could make the UK complicit in war crimes. "
"In March, OXFAM released a statement detailing its intention, alongside several other NGOs,[p] to sue Denmark to prevent arms sales to Israel, warning that by selling arms Denmark is “complicit in violations of international humanitarian law … and a plausible genocide”.
And the ICC is kinda doing the opposite. Really not comparable, as I said.
Lol, the ICC isn’t run by economically advanced states? They haven’t primarily prosecuted people in poor states?
People in those rich states never participated in war crimes?
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.
And how many POC were prosecuted vs white people?
three case groups (Georgia, Russia, Israel) is something that you would have justify.
Sure, western Europeans historically haven’t viewed serbs as “white”. We already talked about Israel.
Again, how many people have been prosecuted that are white?
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.
Ahh yes, the UN is immune from unethical wars…
The fact of the matter is that they are doing more in Africa simply because Africa has a lot of civil wars
And why exactly does Africa have a lot of civil wars…? Hmmm…maybe the hundreds of years of western colonialism and interventionist actions on the continent might have something to do with it?
I guess that is why it went against most of those countries and prosecuted Netanjahu?
Only to have it’s own member states ignore the court they belong to?
The ICC is independent, that’s the whole point!
So long as they don’t prosecute anyone from the G7… Sure.
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!
Lol, I’ve said this several times. I don’t inherently think the ICC itself is evil or anything, I just don’t think they’re really effective at doing anything unless it fits within the geopolitical will of its wealthiest member states. The problem is systemic in nature, and no matter what anyone in the ICC believes no international body is truly independent.
Very cool
based
Eat the rich. They are the enemy.
Too much fat…Very harmful and high cholesterolic.
Cries in American
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.
Justice is supposed to make the victims whole. Calling for execution for financial crimes helps no one and gives the ruling class, the state or government, more precedent to do it to others.
How does putting someone in jail or having them pay a fine to the government help “make the victims whole” any more than the death sentence would? If that was the point of the justice system, we would only have payments of wealth or services from criminals to victims and nothing else. In fact, I can think of quite a few crimes where the victims would love nothing more than the permission get to kill the criminal themselves in the most painful way possible.
The number one priority of a justice system is to prevent crimes from happening in the first place - a task it has to constantly balance with freedom and human rights as the ultimate solution is to get rid of all criminals - and the more it wants to prevent a certain type of crime, the harsher the punishment for it should be. But as I said, usually the death penalty is used for crimes done by people who aren’t thinking about the consequences.
If you use it as the threat for financial crime, soon you will have no more victims of financial crime, as the criminals are all either dead or too afraid to do it.
Should it be used, for that or in the first place, that’s a completely different argument all together.
You got it. If this person committed fraud they owe damages to the victims of the fraud, not the government. If the government spills this persons blood on the street, what do you get? The only thing that happens is that the punishment for fraud is now death. Do you honestly believe it will stop here? What about the fraudster that commits $100 million worth of fraud? Should they be executed too? What about $10,000? When you apply capital punishment to civil crimes, the application can only ever be arbitrary and unjust.
If the government spills this persons blood on the street, what do you get? The only thing that happens is that the punishment for fraud is now death.
For this single case in an isolated vacuum, sure.
Outside that you’d get no more fraud, and no more future fraud victims, because the punishment for it wouldn’t be worth the risk for anyone to try.
Like I said, if the punishment for a parking violation was death, every single driver would make damn sure they would never, ever get one. Apply that for every “deliberate” crime and you end up with a society with essentially zero crime.
Also a lot fewer people alive, but zero crime.Where the line goes is completely up to the justice system, how badly they want to prevent that type of crime, as it goes with every crime and punishment.
For wealthy people who are deliberately and calculatedly doing their shit I guarantee you it will be.
Edit: the studies that you are referring to aren’t referring to that type of perp.
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.
There is already a concept from french nobility about that… Didn’t prevent their head to roll in the end
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.
About tree-fiddy
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.
Bring this shit to the US. Chop chop.
They defrauded 12 billion, only have to pay 9? Sounds like they just made 3 billion.
If these fucks face a realistic prospect of getting their heads chopped off? Sure, let 'em roll those dice.
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 only all “tycoons” could face execution…
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.
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.
She probably has her assets tied up in foreign banks where the state can’t access it. Anarchists are dumb and only useful for revolutionary purposes. Once revolutions end, so must the anarchist. Currency is a necessity because there is not enough material abundance to not need it. All the shit jobs that no one wants to do needs to be automated before we can remove money. This is the dream that Marx had for Communism. If you don’t understand the basic foundation for achieving a true Communist society, then you are not educated enough to speak on the subject.
Kim Il-Sung tried demonetization prematurely from the dprk and it ended horribly. You cannot advance society into a Communist state without making the proper technological and material advancement necessary to support it. But you anarchists want to live in hippie communes and sing songs instead of advancing society. Marx did not advocate for a reverting back to tribal society, but a necessary progression from capitalism to socialism and eventually communism.
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.
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.
Did they mention abortion before the edit?
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-
liferschoicers 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.
But I also don’t think the law should protect people with some amount of wealth.
Well, what’s “some amount of wealth”? We all have some amount of it. At what point is it okay to take someone’s life because of it? I don’t think that’s very different from saying “I think we should use capital punishment on murderers”. One of the reasons I oppose capital punishment is also because government convict innocent people; but another is that I think people can be rehabilitated, and I believe that both for murderers and people with wealth.
I say the wealth bit with tongue in cheek, but I mean as some function of wealth distribution or gdp. There is some amount of wealth that is too much and really hurts society to be hoarded. I agree with you though and share your views on the points you made.
I’m so fucking poor I hate it.
༼つ◕◕༽つ༼つ◕◕༽つ༼つ◕_◕༽つ
I guess that it’s not death penalty if she fan ay for it. The only way you can scare these criminals is this
