this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2024
530 points (99.6% liked)

World News

39209 readers
3364 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] 15 points 2 hours 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] 5 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours 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] 1 points 1 hour ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 58 minutes ago* (last edited 58 minutes ago)

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.

[–] IndustryStandard 7 points 3 hours ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

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?

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

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

It doesn't act as a deterant. Many studies back this up. Your confidance is mispleced and simply reflects your violent personality.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 hour ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

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

Eat the rich!

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

So not fundamentally, then.

[–] mrslt 11 points 3 hours ago

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

[–] [email protected] 9 points 8 hours 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 4 hours 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] 3 points 4 hours ago (1 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!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago (1 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.

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago (1 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.

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 minutes ago

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.

[–] pyre 27 points 13 hours 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] 24 points 14 hours 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] 23 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] NotAnotherLemmyUser 3 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Bankman Fried didnt steal just from the people. He stole from other billionaires.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 hours ago

"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

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe 6 points 3 hours ago

It's sarcasm

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 14 hours ago

Ban wealth hoarding.

load more comments
view more: next ›