this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2024
155 points (100.0% liked)

World News

39338 readers
3111 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 47 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

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).

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 24 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

All we gotta do is sentence a handful of billionaires to death and watch the behaviour change when they realize they're not insulated from consequence anymore.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

Imagine all the outrage from red state conservatives if we attempted this.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago

Or from blue state liberals because "we're better than them" or some shit.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah but what they are going to do is make sure they get those protections back. They aren't going to get better.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Then sentence more of them as necessary. Im all for sweeping changes but we're not getting them. Convincing America to kill someone seems way more likely to me.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm fundamentally against capital punishment. This could be an acceptable exception though.

Eat the rich!

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

So not fundamentally, then.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 weeks ago

It's okay, billionaires aren't real people.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 weeks ago (8 children)

Two things America loves: billionaires and the death sentence. It has just never thought to combine them in this way.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 weeks ago
[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Seriously. If she was born in the West, she'd be on the cover of Forbes and taking photos next to celebs.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't support the death penalty, but I won't be terribly sad if a criminal billionaire gets executed by their own government.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Can I ask what's the cutoff? How much money/how high of a position qualifies you for the electric chair?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago (21 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

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.)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

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

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (10 children)

Revolutions aren't pillow fights.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago

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

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (11 children)

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.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

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!

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago

Ban wealth hoarding.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

We now have precedent y'all

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

The power and character of a Socialist system.

load more comments
view more: next ›