Good thing we (the US) lost the war, or this lady would probably have her own team of lobbyists running their country.
I have neither the emotional nor mental bandwidth to read up on this, too stressed being poor. Does anything say what is happening to the money?
it doesn’t have the money anymore, and that’s why its being given justice.
thank you Vietnam, score one for the tankies. I mean, it took a while, and they still have billionaires, but its not nothing, so good on em if they follow through.
Wake me up when Trump sees even just a shred of accountability, or Musk, or Bezos, or …
“We” isn’t this the case of other billionaires getting mad at one billionaire?
Maybe we can trigger a feeding frenzy…
Let’s see:
- non-male
- non-white
Uh huh.
We’ve got a ways to go yet.
Yay for diversity?
i mean it’s vietnam, i would expect non-white
Not a fan of the death penalty
Me neither, but killing some of the capitalist class has always been part of leftist revolutions so I can let this one slide.
Me neither. Except in cases where I support it.
I don’t think the state having the power to round people up and kill them, even if I don’t like the people it is being done to. It seems really dangerous.
Seems like a waste of energy and labor. Put that capitalist pig to work in the community. I read somewhere that the death penalty is just a scare tactic to get her to give up some cash she’s got hidden.
I don’t think we should have billionaires but celebrating state sponsored murder is fucking gross
Lol too bad. Eat the rich
But that’s the only murder that’s socially acceptable!
You forgot war
I wish it were…
Normalize killing billionaires! (for legal reasons this is a joke)
She stole 12.5 billion dollars?!
Jesus Christ. How much is enough?
$∞
Also how does it get to 12.5 billion before people do something? Had they intervened with something less severe at 1 billion then there would still be 11.5 billion and a life not lost.
This is a communist country and a show trial for someone fell out of favor, not am actual fraud case
She’s had so much plastic surgery it looks like she’s got Bell’s palsy.
That’s typical communist competitor purges, it has nothing to o with redistribution of wealth.
This is the correct answer. It’s not the kind of revolution people are thinking, like with France.
This is more like Stalin level shit to send a message.
Or just those that are not on “the line”? Like Russians falling out of windows. What is the actual truth behind this?
the actual truth appears to be that she committed an incredible amount of really basic, egregious fraud
What do you mean by that? The articles about this have been all over on lemmy for the last few days. She got away with ~$9 billion in financial crimes for over a decade, with total damages estimated at $12.5 billion. Her husband was also caught for embezzlement of billions and is receiving a 9 year prison sentence.
Sounds like she must have gotten caught stealing from rich people for it to have been that much. You’ll get in trouble for that anywhere. You may not get the death penalty but you may die in prison.
The death penalty is always wrong.
Murder is not a punishment and once you’ve stripped her of her ill-got gains there is no longer any reason to kill her.The way these people affect so many lives negatively with their fraud is much worse than a person committing murder.
The literal misery they cause to so many people for their own benefit without a fucking iota of shame and their sociopathic behavior is enough to consider eliminating them from society.
The way these people affect so many lives negatively with their fraud is much worse than a person committing murder.
Irrespective how is two bad things better than one bad thing? I would think fewer bad things would be net better.
The literal misery they cause to so many people for their own benefit without a fucking iota of shame and their sociopathic behavior is enough to consider eliminating them from society.
You speak of “sociopathic behavior” while advocating state murder. 🤨
I know. It sounds fucked. But these people are a cancer on society. There’s very little that can be done to reform these people. And the problem is that capitalism rewards this kind of behaviour.
These people currently are ruling the world. If they aren’t the head of some large company, there the head of a government. Because of their large wealth, they have a huge influence on the policies. They’re basically dictating the laws that are governing them. It’s like playing Monopoly with your own made up rules.
You can’t stop those people any other way. The French understood this. When the price of food was out of reach, heads started to roll. Literally. Nowadays the people can’t be violent anymore. Heck, the mere act of peacefully protesting is met with police violence and oppression. How the fuck are we supposed to get the message across when those people have their own militia protecting them and their interests?
There’s very little that can be done to reform these people.
Nothing you have tried so far.
How the fuck are we supposed to get the message across when those people have their own militia protecting them and their interests?
Have you ever considered “Progaganda Of The Deed” to encompass modeling being better people than the opposition?
That’s the problem. There’s one side that’s trying to play by the rules and be nice because they have empathy. Then there’s the other side who lie, cheat, and break the rules for their own benefit without shame.
How the hell are you supposed to play the game and “be better” than the opposition, when the opposition is taking advantage of you?
There has to be clear and grave consequences to discourage them from abusing the system and the people. If it has to be the death penalty, then so be it.
I’m tired of our societies being run by a bunch of industry barons who own everything. Food barons, healthcare barons, banking barons, housing barons, you name it. The mega conglomerates that we can’t escape from who are literally destroying this planet and leeching off of everybody with made up excuses about the state of the “economy”. Having all the world’s fortune in the hands of about 10 people. We can’t stop this by playing nice and asking nicely. Not when they control governments with their financial influence or because they’ve become too big to fail. No. You build fucking guillotines and you execute the motherfuckers.
How the hell are you supposed to play the game and “be better” than the opposition, when the opposition is taking advantage of you?
You do that by not murdering them after you have taken power and over the means of production.
Having all the world’s fortune in the hands of about 10 people. We can’t stop this by playing nice and asking nicely.
Alright so you’ve seized all the money in the world and taken over all the land and machinery that enables production through the application of labor via militant witholding of the same. You and your comrades have all the guns.
…why at that point do you need to use those guns to murder people who are no longer holding murderous control over those common resources?
I refuse to acquiesce to or defend a system of belief that requires people die.
Once you win, you don’t kill or you never had moral authority to employ violence in pursuit of winning in the first place.
fraud is much worse than a person committing murder
you may be right but that’s still no reason to murder them
the death penalty is always wrong, billionaires should die in unpredictable extrajudicial ways. like aneurisms, pianos, etc.
but its something.
I hear you but if I’m honest, and tomorrow America announced it was going to execute every billionaire, I’m not going to put up too much of a protest.
Take the money, sure. Then they’re no longer billionaires and there’s no need to kill them.
In other words, you don’t murder disarmed prisoners of war.
During class war they are the enemy and deserve what comes to them. If taken alive and their weapon of war removed, they don’t need to be dealt with the same way.
Once they are no longer a threat you can work on rehabilitation and restitution.
First off, I agree with you.
But…second…I struggle with the rehabilitation bit. Some people cannot be rehabilitated. It is a hard truth I have learned, coupled with pain and regret, many times in my life. I’m just curious what you think the course of action should be at that point?
I’m not suggesting death/murder, but I do struggle with the idea that if they’re miserable, and the people around them are made miserable, and the people trying to help them are made miserable…what do you do?
You do everything you can for them (whilst making sure they’re not a danger to other people), give the caretakers / wardens plenty of time off, and you give them the option for assisted suicide. In my ideal world, everyone would have the option for assisted suicide though
Some people cannot be rehabilitated.
You can’t know that. You only have evidence for people’s inability to’ve been rehabilitated so far.
I’m just curious what you think the course of action should be at that point?
Not murder.
if they’re miserable, and the people around them are made miserable, and the people trying to help them are made miserable…what do you do?
…drugs?
While I agree in principle I tend to think there are still unforgivable crimes and irredeemable people out there.
While I agree in principle I tend to think there are still unforgivable crimes and irredeemable people out there.
Then you don’t agree.
I wasn’t aware crime was about forgiveness.
I thought in-so-far as societies implemented systems of justice, their purpose was restitution and rehabilitiation.No one gains anything from a person—irrespective their prior actions—being murdered and we all lose a bit of our soul each time a state execution is allowed to take place.
I really expected better from Vietnam, whose “quarantine at gunpoint” public health policies I heartily endorse.
then you don’t agree
Allow me some cognitive dissonance because I really don’t know what society should do about psychopaths, predators, or cases like those execs who put melamine into milk to spoof the protein metrics, leading to the horrible deaths of a large number of babies.
Holding them indefinitely is a useless drain on the state, killing them leads to the inevitability of innocent people dying.
Allow me some cognitive dissonance
Not if you use it to advocate state murder I won’t.
killing them leads to the inevitability of innocent people dying.
Innocent people will always have the ability to die, no matter how many people your state murders.
Alright. I DON’T agree.
Alright. I DON’T agree.
You should; death as a post-hoc punishment is abhorrent and serves no one.
I still don’t agree.
I still don’t agree.
I know, you’re a terrible person.
We’ve established this.I wouldn’t go that far, but since about 90% of the comments you’ve ever made on Lemmy are just you arguing over inconsequential things with random people, I’d wager you are.
If child predators get executed, I don’t lose “a bit of my soul”, I gain more confidence that the world is now a better place.
And do you think these child predators had charming upbringings? Or perhaps they were filled with horrors and trauma?
Yeah, there are absolutely evil people out there, and if you think the state should execute them, that’s your opinion. But to think that all heinous crimes come from a vacuum is naive.
Huh. At least where I am from “Death penalty for child predators” is a common far-right talking point.
You’ve exposed me! I don’t sympathize with child predators, so I must be a Nazi!
I gain more confidence that the world is now a better place.
Oh word? Did the horrific thing they did no longer happen?
Child predators have recidivism rates of 10-35% depending on which studies you’re reading. Each one of those assaults is a potentially life-altering trauma induced in a child. Exactly how many should someone be able to do before we consider they’re not going to be rehabilitated?
Each one of those assaults is a potentially life-altering trauma induced in a child.
Don’t tell me what being abused as a child does to someone, thanks.
Does killing the person who did it make the assault not have happened?
It’s not just about the assault that happened, it’s also about the risk of considerable harm in the future. Killing someone for one act of sexual predation is going to be considered extreme by many but not all people. But what happens after the second or third times? How many is too many?
A life in prison and state sanctioned execution are different, though.
It’s also worth considering why these criminals are criminals. If they were, say, violently abused as a child themselves…does that matter? Functionally, it doesn’t matter to the victim — I get that. But should the state be in the business of executing such people?
But should the state be in the business of executing such people?
Honestly I’ve always felt this was the strongest argument against a death penalty. That said the argument carries nearly the same weight for life imprisonment, and still some for the act of imprisonment at all. We continue to trust juries of fools to judge people to this day, but that is still unfortunately more palatable than giving the right to someone to unilaterally choose your jury.
I’m onboard with a culture of reform and education for convicts because it works, but I also recognize some people cannot be reformed and keeping them imprisoned is needlessly dangerous for many parties. There needs to be a line where we accept someone is too far gone.
Is that equivalent to 65% don’t reoffend? Or am I misunderstanding the recidivism rate?
Yes, which is why my question isn’t just rhetorical. How many is too many? You could make a case for 1 (if you believe the crime is too heinous), or 2 (if you believe in second chances), or 3+ even. But where do you draw the line and accept someone isn’t going to stop?
They won’t repeat the horrific thing they did while dead, that’s for sure.
I’m against the death penalty but it’s not hard to see why some people support it.
I’m not even going to dignify this response. Have a nice day
I’m not even going to dignify this response.
That’s a response.
Have a nice day
Thank you. It’ll indeed be much nicer without you advocating state murder in it. 🙂
I wish, one day I will be as cool as you.
And if an innocent person gets executed for the crime?
I disagree. I don’t subscribe to a world view where every life is sacred. Society has a right to protect itself from persons that will always endanger other people and that includes killing them. However, it has been quite clear that we cannot guarantee that no innocent people are killed. And that’s why I’m OK with the death penalty only in principle, not in practice.
persons that will always endanger other people and that includes killing them.
You cannot know that, and if you have the ability to strap someone down and end their life, you have no need to do so since you clearly have complete control over their person.
I’m OK with the death penalty only in principle
You shouldn’t be. States qua arbiters of justice should not intentionally kill people under their control.
you don’t keep that control over billionaires.their money has too much loyalty.
so they need to be killed. I do agree that the state shouldn’t be making the decision, but Vietnam is weird and still at least dresses up as communist.
you don’t keep that control over billionaires.their money has too much loyalty.
Once you take the money they aren’t billionaires anymore.
but money is just an idea; easier to put a bullet in them than rewrite the entire social perception of them.
It’s easier to put bullets in things than to do alot of things, what’s your point?
It’s easier to shoot someone than to change your sheets but it doesn’t make your bed smell less of piss.
it takes seconds, other way takes years, and its not worth risking it getting away. it’s not human anymore, and its a danger to humans, so if its not down for trying to be human again; kill it. don’t waste the effort when there are living people who need help.
Taking their money away isn’t enough. These billionaires often have deep connections to people who could easily help them regain their wealth and power. I’m not sure what the answer is but taking the money won’t solve the problem in every case.
These billionaires often have deep connections to people who could easily help them regain their wealth and power.
So take their money too.
This is a discussion about personal morals. Some people think it’s OK to execute some criminals, others are completely opposed to that idea. There is no objective right or wrong here.
For you your arguments might be compelling, but they don’t convince me. I can have complete control over someone and still decide to kill them because I don’t want to bother with locking them up, for example. And who says a society should not kill? That’s not even an argument, just an opinion.
There is no objective right or wrong here.
No, the state killing people is objectively wrong.
Fucking lol. I love Lemmy. I’ve never seen such an obscure group of people speak in absolutes so consistently. Puts reddit to shame.
“I WILL DECIDE WHAT IS RIGHT OR WRONG”
“I WILL DECIDE WHAT IS GOOD OR EVIL”
“I WILL DECIDE WHAT IS RIGHT OR WRONG”
I don’t decide. The state murdering people is wrong. I just have the moral wherewithal to recognize the fact.
Which isn’t hard because it’s objectively true.
Hope this helps.
Ok, I’ll play along for a bit.
The state murdering people is wrong.
Prove it is wrong. Use facts and data to prove capital punishment is wrong.
While celebrating a billionaire getting their just desserts is always fun, not really sure that this is a reflection of the decency of the Vietnamese government.
I can’t get behind a government giving the death penalty to anybody for any reason
Since there’s no rational hope of addressing the other 3k or so billionaire parasites on Earth without building a really big Titanic tour sub and making little paths of stock certificates leading to it like reese’s pieces in ET, I’ll take whatever incidental vicarious revenge against humanity’s oppressors I can get.
I mean, celebrate the revenge, for sure. Just don’t mistake it for decency. Vietnam is about as corrupt as India.
We’re no less corrupt in the US, merely more expensive.
Our cheats just hire lobbyists to make their corrupt practices legal, shout out to Citizens United, and/or hire enough lawyers to make the consequences meaningless, like fining a company that makes billions a year thousands for profitable criminal activity.
Our “solution” to corruption is simply to make it legal for the right price. Donald Trump should have lost his empire and gone to jail for his business practices long before he was a game show host, let alone POTUS, but he learned and inherited enough from daddy to understand how to wield American style corruption, and he’s still free.
We’re no less corrupt in the US, merely more expensive.
We’re very corrupt in the US. That’s not the same as being corrupt to the same degree. I… would encourage looking into the relative corruption of countries. We, in the US, are near the bottom of the the list as far as developed countries go (beaten out by only such luminaries as Italy and Greece), but we aren’t even close to as bad as it can get. We’re just more aware of our own corruption than of other countries. I mean, we are Americans. We’re barely aware of the existence of other countries, much less their corruption.
China 🤝 Vietnam
that’s a weird way to spell “enabling them in the first place” 🤔
Criticising other countries for enabling billionaires is something I think only like Cuba can do.
According to my quick Google search, there are about 100 million people in Vietnam. The average wage is $150 per month. $12.5B shared among each person is $125.
Why not make her pay that amount instead of a death sentence?
I’m guessing they take the money too
That’s actually what their “death penalty” is trying to do. Apparently most of the money she stole is in overseas bank accounts and relies on her taking action to actually give it back. She has appeals and if she paid up the appeals will probably back down from the death penalty.
Well then. Murdering someone as ex-post “punishment” for past actions remains abhorrent, but holding a gun to her head until she gives the money back is cool and good.
There is a difference between threatening violence as a deterrent against currently engaged in harms a person has the ability to cease and claiming moral authority to end a person’s life due to things they have no control over.
There’s distinction between “Put down the box or we’ll shoot you.” and “Having touched the box in the past, you now need to die regardless.”
Still don’t fuck with “The death penalty” as a framework for the threat, however.
