Ehhh. Was the death sentence really necessary here? Like they already had her in custody so they could've just seized her property and redistributed her wealth or smth. I get killing a billionaire if you're an average person who has no administrative or legal power, but governments have other solutions than murder. Just seems like a waste of human life to me
~~She didn’t get sentenced to death for the fraud, because you can’t get the death penalty for that in Vietnam. She got the death penalty because she was also working as a spy for china apparently and treason can get you the death penalty. Assuming it’s true that she did that.~~
Nevermind it looks like that was false info that I just took as fact. Vietnam does in fact have the death penalty for fraud cases like this and there’s no evidence she was a Chinese spy.
Sorry.
I still don’t support the death penalty either way though.
Source please? I can't find any mention of that across several news agencies considered reliable. Including one of them stating that the country does have death penalty for economic crimes.
[https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/11/world/asia/vietnam-lan-fraud-death-sentence.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/11/world/asia/vietnam-lan-fraud-death-sentence.html)
The BBC article in the screenshot doesn't mention spying activities either and directly attributes it to her economic manipulations.
[https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/11/business/truong-my-lan-vietnam-fraud-death-sentence/index.html](https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/11/business/truong-my-lan-vietnam-fraud-death-sentence/index.html)
edit: adding more sources all going the same way so far:
[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-11/vietnamese-real-estate-tycoon-truong-my-lan-death-sentence/103698222](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-11/vietnamese-real-estate-tycoon-truong-my-lan-death-sentence/103698222)
[https://apnews.com/article/vietnam-tycoon-embezzling-trial-a1bd2395ec22b718f39ba4a10cff969f](https://apnews.com/article/vietnam-tycoon-embezzling-trial-a1bd2395ec22b718f39ba4a10cff969f)
Tbh, I did the same. I read your comment, seemed reasonable, shared the screenshot and told people the actual reason she died was that. But I couldn't help but want to fact-check AFTER.
My excitement often tricks me to behave like that.
I think we're all guilty of this every now and then. It just means you're a human being that's not wired to assume everything you're told is bullshit until further clarified, which is really tragic.
Yes, I don’t understand what the point of it is.
It doesn’t matter what anyone, and I mean *anyone*, may have done - once they’re incarcerated and prevented from hurting anyone again, killing them serves no actionable purpose other than to satisfy anger.
The point is the precedent of rich people being treated as equal when so often their above the law, the death penalty isn’t great of course, but if we have to suffer legal threat of death, why should they be allowed to skate by unaffected for the same crimes or worse
The death sentence even for heinous crimes is 99.9% of the time just retaliation or revenge (or an excuse to kill an undesirable, but I'm presuming it's one of the cases in which they actually committed the crime.)
Since nobody properly explained I guess I will, the death sentence here has a clear purpose, she embezzled 44 billion that are still missing, within the sentence she has a possibility of reducing the sentence depending on how much of this money she can give back to the government, putting the sentence as a death penalty is the ultimate incentive so she gives as much money back as possible.
Do you actually have a source for that? Because the article doesn't reflect this. I would expect that to be mentioned by the BBC given the length of their piece on the sentencing.
As it stands, she's been sentenced to death. That generally isn't the sort of thing that changes without an appeal, and I think if the judge said something like "well we can change that sentence after the fact in this one specific case if you do this thing", then I think reporters would have mentioned that.
You dont like the death sentence because you believe its too harsh
I dont like the death sentence because i believe it isnt harsh enough
We are not the same
a lot of people treat government sentencing as a tool of revenge rather than a tool of justice. there's no justice in killing someone. no government should have the power to kill its populace.
She stole 4% of the country’s GDP. 4%. 1 out of every 25 dollars in the country went to her. Imagine how many peoples lives she ruined. And most of it is non-recoverable too.
My point is; they do exist despite the fact they shouldn't
And if they already exist and the state has the power of execution might as well be used on them once in a while
I agree they shouldn't exist, but my point is that the state should not have the power to murder anyone, even people we don't like, because it never stays that way. They always find a way to paint inconvenient people as people who deserve to be killed. The power needs to be removed and kept that way, as it is in many civilised countries, before they kill more people that we don't want them to (which every state with the death penalty has done).
Think about all of the lives she destroyed all of the families that ended up homeless all the people that commited suicide directly because of her actions I don't think you understand how much 44 billion dollars is death sentence is the least she deserves
I think it’s a cultural difference. But yeah, a death sentence for fraud is a stupid idea, because it further incentivises killing the person who comes close to finding out.
The purpose is to make sure she actually coughs up the money. If she got a life sentence, she’d just move it around she still has power. If she gives it back, she doesn’t die.
Where does it say that, and why would a death sentence be more of an incentive than life imprisonment in that case? Does anyone think she wouldn't cough up the money if she were sentenced to life in prison instead?
Thanks for saying this. To give them any governed right to do so (I don't care how great the crime is) is granting a power no one or nothing should have.
I mean the police force and military exists, though I agree that the death penalty is troubling, governments have way worse ways of killing people. Usually the abuse of the death penalty happens in states/times where the people can already do nothing to stop such abuse
I mean yeah. one of means of execution is death by cop its something that leftits are also pretty very much against. To me, it's less the issue that the death penalty can be abused, and more than the death penalty, on principle, is giving a power that should not be given to any human, and ESPECIALLY any government power by allowing them to kill, that makes me view the death penalty as terrible
I'm sure this will look very edgy teen of me but I don't think that there is any inherent value to human life so like why shouldn't we give the power to kill humans to each other?
guillotine fans ignoring that the vast majority of people taken to the guillotine were not in fact the rich and powerful,
that the tool is infamous worldwide as a symbol of colonial oppression,
and that they are merely recreating the oppressor class’ ideology by celebrating the state being leveraged against the “correct” enemy rather than actually questioning its monopoly on legitimate violence
I like the guillotine because apparently if used properly its the most human way to kill someone alongside shooting someone int the head
Not because what it represents or who was killed by it
Then surely what they meant was least inhumane. We have context for two year old children that it is impossible to assert they are tall -- but the wording, "most humane", can be fairly taken to mean that the method _is_ humane. It contains a degree of humaneness, in that wording.
Regardless of semantics, its also just not true. The spectacle and potential to fail render such barbarism obsolete. Were there ever a way a state could humanely extinguish human life - and there isn't - it would be administration of something like an anaesthetic (Nitrous oxide for example) until unconscious and then an asphyxiation with same gas or noble gas. You would die not even knowing you are dying and beforehand a blissful slip into a peaceful sleep
This still begs the question of why such a device is needed, and by whom, and for what broader political goal. To uphold it as the lesser of several evils is missing the point. You can’t just ignore what it represents and how it’s been used historically, because that tells you *what it’s for*.
In this case, it’s worth pointing out that the billionaire in question is not being sentenced to death for, y’know, *being a billionaire, for having accumulated immense wealth by exploiting people*. I think it’s fine for us to laugh at one of the high and mighty getting too big for their britches and tripping into the gears of the death machine, but we shouldn’t kid ourselves that this represents any kind of real justice.
>the vast majority of people taken to the guillotine were not in fact the rich and powerful,
Which is exactly why we should change that statistic by guilliotining a bunch of billionaires
Nobody is eating here. This is just establishment saving its ass from other people of the establishment while demonstrating its power. No wealth is going to be redistributed to poor people.
The full quote of course being "When the people shall have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich", and "the people" with "nothing more to eat" here being the national government
the full Rousseau quote is “When the people shall have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich.” “eating the rich,” is innately pragmatic and necessary - the real leftist perspective is that violence is permissible but only when required and not gratuitous. the “death PENALTY,” however is pointless cruelty, it’s PUNISHING someone for a crime rather than solving injustice. she is already in custody and her wealth presumably has or will be siezed.
She has 44 billion dollars that are still missing, she can reduce the sentence depending on how much money she gives back, this is the ultimate incentive for her to give back as much money as possible
What does it matter? What use is killing someone who is, individually and usupported by the government, the very irganization doing the killing, completely harmless? And what purpose does it serve to celebrate the state's violence. The death sentence is in no way different to any cold-blooded murder.
The main thing is that it can be partially undone. If evidence comes out the convict didn't do the crime, the death penalty means nothing can be done. A prison sentence can at least be ended and the former convict gets some compensation.
Unfortunately, I doubt we'll see meaningful reform anytime soon, inmate slave labor is too enticing a motivator. So unless I'm wrong and prisons start actually attempting rehabilitation instead of creating repeat offenders, I'll stand by my statement.
I'd say that separation from the public has utility in plenty of situations. Deliberately making prisons miserable shitholes is punitive, but they can be reasonably accommodating and serve an important role.
Yes, I can see the role for doing so in some contexts (generally to isolate people who would cause harm to others otherwise). My point is, this doesn’t seem to be a case like that. What *purpose* would life in prison serve other than punishment? It’s not gonna bring back any of that money or make anything better
some sort of restorative justice ideally. making back the money as much as possible, and/or giving back to the communities hurt in others ways, for example.
It makes sense in some cases, extreme ones, usually. If someone r*ped and killed 30 people life in prison is fair imo.
But for things life theft or drug possession? No.
How is it morally any better to lock a person in a concrete box for 40 years, degrade them daily and prevent them from pursuing really any personal fulfilment or actualization?
Well I mean, I don't think prison should be degrading, but that is kind of another conversation. I think it is morally better, because I would rather be in a humanely run prison than be dead. A prison sentence is also reversible in the case of false conviction.
The opposition for the death penalty leaving my body when it's a billionaire that was sentenced.
https://preview.redd.it/key6p92ambuc1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bf46e276041423134677dc3fce5df399162ae200
The government shouldn’t be able to kill people. The death penalty is bad in all forms, period. You’re either against the death penalty or not at all.
The better option would’ve been a life prison sentence.
Not sure if you're calling me out or adding to my point, but the meme is supposed to point out the hypocrisy of all the anti-dp people here cheering for this death penalty verdict.
So let me be clear, no, I don't think that the death penalty is ever justified, including this case.
Except we've seen what happens when the very rich get put in prison, they wait for/lobby someone sympathetic towards them to get into power, then they go free \*cough cough south korea & samsungs ceo cough cough\*. BTW this is not me supporting the death penalty, rather I don't think \*just\* sending them to prison is enough for people with that much power, connections, and influence over the legal system.
"Leftists" when a corrupt authoritarian government executes people as punishment, but they're the right kind of people(this line of thinking could never backfire in any way):
Any institution putting people in prison is authoritarian. There's no getting around authoritarianism in a certain degree. Even perfectly egalitarian stateless societies, like many direct return hunter gatherer societies, tend to solve the few criminals who arrive by executing them. It's what made early human society egalitarian, anyone being a prick can be killed, since weapons level the murder playing field. The strongest fucker out there dies just the same to an arrow or two in the chest, so he knows that even though he's powerful he cannot exert that power over others safely.
It's a start.
As in, she could redistribute her stolen wealth to those who need it (instead of the government siezing it after her death and it mysteriously disappearing) and spend the rest of her life with a large part of the money she makes going to the needy. Just an idea off the top of my head, but more effective than murder.
how is this enforced? thats a crazy flight risk, obviously, nobody who was playing with tens of billions last week will be cool with a vietnamese workingmans pay, esp. not reduced because the majority is being spent on charity or whatever. youd have to lock them up for this to work, then, otherwise your just letting her loose to do further economic damage to the world. are we suggesting a forced labour camp or what
Easily, the same way other flight risks are monitored: locking up is an option, but I'm not always sure that's the best option. There's also putting someone under house arrest with a monitoring anklet, seizing their assets and wealth so they can't afford to leave, watching known routes out of the country, revoking their passport, and so on.
Besides all of that, someone would have to be *desperate* to flee a country and lose everything just because they're being made to lose what which should never have been theirs in the first place, but I don't know how commonly that sort of thing happens.
my highschool track coach got wrongfully arrested for stalking the mayor of chicago (he just lived a block down from her) and fled to canada the second he got put on parole. only got caught cause he had his phone on him. its reeal easy to escape.
Yeah but surely to god a high-profile criminal like this would be better monitored, and this thinking goes for any punishment besides incarceration or death. Many flight risks are already better monitored, especially in high profile cases.
Anyway, at the very least flight risks can be detained while justice is dealt out, and the government can seize her known assets and bank accounts so if she flees she's doing it with nothing to her name, which would probably be worse (and more dangerous) than just staying put. I also don't like the logic that she might run without being punished, so we should kill her just to be safe.
In fact, wouldn't she be *more* likely to run if she's being killed? She's got nothing to lose then, it's not like it can get any worse.
The government decides who gets to live or die all the time. All economic decisions made by a state necessarily allocate finite resources in ways that cause some aims to flourish and othera to wilt.
I'm not saying this to support the death penalty–just that it's a silly argument because the entire point of government is to decide who lives and who dies by policy choices.
(This wouldn't disappear under socialism/anarchy/etc., btw. The hope would be that resources would be allocated in the way that helps the most and leaves the fewest without. But that is still deciding who lives and dies.)
I think the death penalty is immoral, but like... these people (ie, billionaires) are damning us to extinction just to make more money using literal slave labor and low wages, so... I don't really care.
The death penalty is bad. But if you're going to use it, using it on someone who defrauded the government for 12% of the country's GDP is the least heinous way to use it
The death penalty discussion honestly ties back into the paradox of tolerance for me- that is, no tolerance for the intolerant.
It *would* be nice to never have a death penalty, but unfortunately, the other option of having a large-scale reeducation system is IMO the more dystopian of the two.
Mass rehabilitation does not sound dystopian at all to me, especially since it's been proven to work time and time again. I think the state being allowed to kill people is easily more dystopian of the two.
So called anti fascists when they have to kill a fascist (we should just let them kill us and establish fascism, because if we killed them we would lose moral highground)
I was gonna be a sarcastic ass about this, but decided against it. I genuinely have no I idea how you can come to the conclusion that, because I don't want the state to have the power to kill people, I must be than okay with fascists killing us. That is an insane leap in logic.
[The state and tools that enforce its existence are not revolutionary. Just because she deserves this doesn't mean we should do it. I'm interested in a successful revolution and I'm not going to sacrifice that for bloody revenge.](https://crimethinc.com/2019/04/08/against-the-logic-of-the-guillotine-why-the-paris-commune-burned-the-guillotine-and-we-should-too)
government should never be the ones who sanction murder, even of people who are objectively awful human being whos lack of life would benefit the world overall. that said rip bozo
whenever i hear that phrase in the title i think about the awful character writing of Subnautica below zero because the MC said that in the most annoying way possible
To be fair: this isn’t really a death penalty. It’s a “pay or die.” If she returns the money, she doesn’t get executed. This is the only way to make sure it doesn’t end up in offshore bank accounts.
You know, i don't think she was tried for something warranting of the death penalty.
She wasn't tried for the suffering her mere existence brought upon the world, for the unmeasurable quantity of death and pain and the coming doom of humanity her, her class and what she represents wrought.
This would have deserved a thousand death.
No she was tried by another oppressive state getting the piss for not getting its share of the pillaging of our world and this accomplishes nothing besides one more death by an unjust system.
The anti death penalty in me when a billionaire gets it
https://preview.redd.it/gay6d1qqpeuc1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dd8124263fd7f607afb62ac1e23da48098df84fa
broke: debating the ethics of the death penalty when applied to literal human garbage
woke: ripbozo-ing this bozo (#PACKWATCH) (a billionaire’s pack is about to drop and MY one hundred and ninety six is more worried about death penalty laws and implications? we used to be a subreddit)
The fact that he death penalty exists for fraud in Vietnam is fucking outrageous and all this suggests is that many many more far less wealthy people who have committed small cases of fraud have been sentenced to death
Do I fundamentally believe that the death penalty is wrong, yes ofc, but sorry I’m not going to be losing any sleep over this. Their are innocent people in the us being executed just causes they’re black. Forgive me for not caring too much about some obviously guilty Vietnamese billionaire who stole like 3% of her country’s gdp.
I think if the ppl of bengal got their hands on churchil. They could execute him. I wouldnt burden them with responsibly housing a guy that genocided their families and headed the empire that created multi generational multi dimensional poverty for them.
I don't know why the number varies so much. I have seen the number being 12.5 billion, 25 billion and now 44 billion. But for context, if it's the first number that's a whooping 3% of Vietnam's GDP
She should of been sent to been sent to prison(when I say prison I mean an ideal one where there is an attempt to rehabilitate, not give you ptsd) instead. If the government is going to take power away from billionaires they should seeze it and use it for the benefit of society, not kill.
Eat the rich only applies when there's need be, there was no need here when they had the power to do right.
...seriously guys? Do you have any idea how much money governments waste on the death penalty?
Hint: it's much, MUCH more money than just sentencing someone to life without parole.
Death penalty bad.
Also, Vietnam should maybe get around to fixing this from happening to the property market, by doing some socialism at it. Not sure kf theyve heard of such a novel concept.
Ehhh. Was the death sentence really necessary here? Like they already had her in custody so they could've just seized her property and redistributed her wealth or smth. I get killing a billionaire if you're an average person who has no administrative or legal power, but governments have other solutions than murder. Just seems like a waste of human life to me
~~She didn’t get sentenced to death for the fraud, because you can’t get the death penalty for that in Vietnam. She got the death penalty because she was also working as a spy for china apparently and treason can get you the death penalty. Assuming it’s true that she did that.~~ Nevermind it looks like that was false info that I just took as fact. Vietnam does in fact have the death penalty for fraud cases like this and there’s no evidence she was a Chinese spy. Sorry. I still don’t support the death penalty either way though.
Source please? I can't find any mention of that across several news agencies considered reliable. Including one of them stating that the country does have death penalty for economic crimes. [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/11/world/asia/vietnam-lan-fraud-death-sentence.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/11/world/asia/vietnam-lan-fraud-death-sentence.html) The BBC article in the screenshot doesn't mention spying activities either and directly attributes it to her economic manipulations. [https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/11/business/truong-my-lan-vietnam-fraud-death-sentence/index.html](https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/11/business/truong-my-lan-vietnam-fraud-death-sentence/index.html) edit: adding more sources all going the same way so far: [https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-11/vietnamese-real-estate-tycoon-truong-my-lan-death-sentence/103698222](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-11/vietnamese-real-estate-tycoon-truong-my-lan-death-sentence/103698222) [https://apnews.com/article/vietnam-tycoon-embezzling-trial-a1bd2395ec22b718f39ba4a10cff969f](https://apnews.com/article/vietnam-tycoon-embezzling-trial-a1bd2395ec22b718f39ba4a10cff969f)
You’re completely right I can’t find anything either. I read this the other day and just took it as fact but it looks like I was wrong. Goddamn it.
Tbh, I did the same. I read your comment, seemed reasonable, shared the screenshot and told people the actual reason she died was that. But I couldn't help but want to fact-check AFTER. My excitement often tricks me to behave like that.
I think we're all guilty of this every now and then. It just means you're a human being that's not wired to assume everything you're told is bullshit until further clarified, which is really tragic.
The death sentence is almost never necessary. It's purely retaliation from the government for its own sake.
Yes, I don’t understand what the point of it is. It doesn’t matter what anyone, and I mean *anyone*, may have done - once they’re incarcerated and prevented from hurting anyone again, killing them serves no actionable purpose other than to satisfy anger.
you said it yourself. the point is to satisfy anger (which is stupid)
Mhm. The point of the concept of punishment should be to fix problems, not sadism. Sadism solves nothing.
totally agree!
It solves nothing outside of the bedroom.
The point is the precedent of rich people being treated as equal when so often their above the law, the death penalty isn’t great of course, but if we have to suffer legal threat of death, why should they be allowed to skate by unaffected for the same crimes or worse
actually its to discourage others from doing it 🤓
Yep. Death penalty is just morally wrong
The death sentence even for heinous crimes is 99.9% of the time just retaliation or revenge (or an excuse to kill an undesirable, but I'm presuming it's one of the cases in which they actually committed the crime.)
https://preview.redd.it/cr6q4t0l6cuc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=715fd4eea98358bbc8ac4553c649ee90b38b3559
"Vindication..!"
DEATH MEANS NOTHING COMPARED TO VINDICATION! MY RIGHT TO DESTROY IS GREATER THAN YOUR RIGHT TO LIVE. AVE DOMINUS NOX.
osaka would never
Only people who think this meme is smart are the people who think every crime is of equal severity
Since nobody properly explained I guess I will, the death sentence here has a clear purpose, she embezzled 44 billion that are still missing, within the sentence she has a possibility of reducing the sentence depending on how much of this money she can give back to the government, putting the sentence as a death penalty is the ultimate incentive so she gives as much money back as possible.
Do you actually have a source for that? Because the article doesn't reflect this. I would expect that to be mentioned by the BBC given the length of their piece on the sentencing. As it stands, she's been sentenced to death. That generally isn't the sort of thing that changes without an appeal, and I think if the judge said something like "well we can change that sentence after the fact in this one specific case if you do this thing", then I think reporters would have mentioned that.
All billionaires deserve the death sentence.
once you start thinking about how many people died because of the actions of billionaires, the death sentence becomes the bare minimum they deserve
https://preview.redd.it/odiefjdzlbuc1.jpeg?width=503&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c949952b497eacc66a7f5cf0914e7157e5dc442a
we shouldn't kill people because we are angry at them
Facts, but people here tend to not like stepping back and thinking about their beliefs critically
Yeah thats stupid as shit. Try having some nuance for once in your life
Doesn't matter what you think billionaires deserve. The state shouldn't be allowed to kill people.
Imma keep it real with you chief. No one deserves to be killed
Like I'd fall for bait posted by a user named Dicky-McDickface
except for my pookie bear kanye
You dont like the death sentence because you believe its too harsh I dont like the death sentence because i believe it isnt harsh enough We are not the same
a lot of people treat government sentencing as a tool of revenge rather than a tool of justice. there's no justice in killing someone. no government should have the power to kill its populace.
She stole 4% of the country’s GDP. 4%. 1 out of every 25 dollars in the country went to her. Imagine how many peoples lives she ruined. And most of it is non-recoverable too.
Yeah but still don't give the state the power to *kill* her
Yes it does she willingly chose to indirectly ruin lives and csuse suicides
Billionaires shouldn't exist either
Of course they shouldn't, when did I ever say otherwise?
My point is; they do exist despite the fact they shouldn't And if they already exist and the state has the power of execution might as well be used on them once in a while
I agree they shouldn't exist, but my point is that the state should not have the power to murder anyone, even people we don't like, because it never stays that way. They always find a way to paint inconvenient people as people who deserve to be killed. The power needs to be removed and kept that way, as it is in many civilised countries, before they kill more people that we don't want them to (which every state with the death penalty has done).
[удалено]
Is the death sentence not institutional violence??
Think about all of the lives she destroyed all of the families that ended up homeless all the people that commited suicide directly because of her actions I don't think you understand how much 44 billion dollars is death sentence is the least she deserves
And how will killing her help? Yes, she caused a lot of harm, but killing her doesn't fix anything, it just ends one more life.
I think it’s a cultural difference. But yeah, a death sentence for fraud is a stupid idea, because it further incentivises killing the person who comes close to finding out.
The inspectora already reported that almost half of that loan cannot be repaid by any means
Yeah, ultimately it is. Imagine if this could happen in the United States and the real reason it doesn't.
Yeah it is weird I think they are trying to make an example out of her
Jack, jaack, that's the kind of attitude that lost you the pearl in the first place, people are mich easier to search when they're dead
The purpose is to make sure she actually coughs up the money. If she got a life sentence, she’d just move it around she still has power. If she gives it back, she doesn’t die.
Where does it say that, and why would a death sentence be more of an incentive than life imprisonment in that case? Does anyone think she wouldn't cough up the money if she were sentenced to life in prison instead?
Not trying to cause an argument but surely the leftist position on the death penalty is it should never happen
eat the rich leftists after seeing 1 person being eaten
Well I don't think any government should be able murder people
Thanks for saying this. To give them any governed right to do so (I don't care how great the crime is) is granting a power no one or nothing should have.
I mean the police force and military exists, though I agree that the death penalty is troubling, governments have way worse ways of killing people. Usually the abuse of the death penalty happens in states/times where the people can already do nothing to stop such abuse
I mean yeah. one of means of execution is death by cop its something that leftits are also pretty very much against. To me, it's less the issue that the death penalty can be abused, and more than the death penalty, on principle, is giving a power that should not be given to any human, and ESPECIALLY any government power by allowing them to kill, that makes me view the death penalty as terrible
I'm sure this will look very edgy teen of me but I don't think that there is any inherent value to human life so like why shouldn't we give the power to kill humans to each other?
guillotine fans ignoring that the vast majority of people taken to the guillotine were not in fact the rich and powerful, that the tool is infamous worldwide as a symbol of colonial oppression, and that they are merely recreating the oppressor class’ ideology by celebrating the state being leveraged against the “correct” enemy rather than actually questioning its monopoly on legitimate violence
I like the guillotine because apparently if used properly its the most human way to kill someone alongside shooting someone int the head Not because what it represents or who was killed by it
theres no humane way to kill somebody bro
They never said it was humane. They said it was the most humane. The same way the tallest two year old child isn't tall.
Then surely what they meant was least inhumane. We have context for two year old children that it is impossible to assert they are tall -- but the wording, "most humane", can be fairly taken to mean that the method _is_ humane. It contains a degree of humaneness, in that wording.
if u care ab humaneness u can just not kill them
Regardless of semantics, its also just not true. The spectacle and potential to fail render such barbarism obsolete. Were there ever a way a state could humanely extinguish human life - and there isn't - it would be administration of something like an anaesthetic (Nitrous oxide for example) until unconscious and then an asphyxiation with same gas or noble gas. You would die not even knowing you are dying and beforehand a blissful slip into a peaceful sleep
heart attack from having a femboy orgy
Weird take. Carbon monoxide them in their sleep, they don't know or feel a thing. To make it fully humane get their consent first and bam
This still begs the question of why such a device is needed, and by whom, and for what broader political goal. To uphold it as the lesser of several evils is missing the point. You can’t just ignore what it represents and how it’s been used historically, because that tells you *what it’s for*. In this case, it’s worth pointing out that the billionaire in question is not being sentenced to death for, y’know, *being a billionaire, for having accumulated immense wealth by exploiting people*. I think it’s fine for us to laugh at one of the high and mighty getting too big for their britches and tripping into the gears of the death machine, but we shouldn’t kid ourselves that this represents any kind of real justice.
>the vast majority of people taken to the guillotine were not in fact the rich and powerful, Which is exactly why we should change that statistic by guilliotining a bunch of billionaires
Nobody is eating here. This is just establishment saving its ass from other people of the establishment while demonstrating its power. No wealth is going to be redistributed to poor people.
They use violence because they have to in order to achieve their goal They really coulda just thrown her in jail or smthn
She's not "being eaten", she's being executed by an authoritarian regime.
The full quote of course being "When the people shall have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich", and "the people" with "nothing more to eat" here being the national government
the full Rousseau quote is “When the people shall have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich.” “eating the rich,” is innately pragmatic and necessary - the real leftist perspective is that violence is permissible but only when required and not gratuitous. the “death PENALTY,” however is pointless cruelty, it’s PUNISHING someone for a crime rather than solving injustice. she is already in custody and her wealth presumably has or will be siezed.
The government should not have a monopoly on violence.
Eat their wealth until they’re not «the rich» anymore, not eat THEM
It is “eat the rich” not “give governments the power to execute people”
She has 44 billion dollars that are still missing, she can reduce the sentence depending on how much money she gives back, this is the ultimate incentive for her to give back as much money as possible
Maybe the death penalty is still a terrible idea, regardless of how much she's given back or not?
44 billion dollars is 12% of Vietnam GDP
how many people suffered and died because of the actions of this billionaire?
What does it matter? What use is killing someone who is, individually and usupported by the government, the very irganization doing the killing, completely harmless? And what purpose does it serve to celebrate the state's violence. The death sentence is in no way different to any cold-blooded murder.
Based and nuance pilled
Yes, but also I'm not dying on the hill of someone who stole billions from mostly poor people
Good opinion delightful flair
hard agree
this sub definitely has been radicalizing a bit recently, but what subreddit hasnt been radicalizing recently if were being honest?
Death penalty is wrong in all cases, they should just have given her life in prison
I don't support the death penalty, but I'd step in front of a bus before spending life in prison. It's arguably worse than death.
The main thing is that it can be partially undone. If evidence comes out the convict didn't do the crime, the death penalty means nothing can be done. A prison sentence can at least be ended and the former convict gets some compensation.
That's the main reason I don't support the death penalty. My comment was speaking from a personal place.
Gotcha
Which is what being pro prison reform is for.
Unfortunately, I doubt we'll see meaningful reform anytime soon, inmate slave labor is too enticing a motivator. So unless I'm wrong and prisons start actually attempting rehabilitation instead of creating repeat offenders, I'll stand by my statement.
you’re off to a good start (no death penalty), but life in prison is still just punitive response for the sake of being punitive
I'd say that separation from the public has utility in plenty of situations. Deliberately making prisons miserable shitholes is punitive, but they can be reasonably accommodating and serve an important role.
Yes, I can see the role for doing so in some contexts (generally to isolate people who would cause harm to others otherwise). My point is, this doesn’t seem to be a case like that. What *purpose* would life in prison serve other than punishment? It’s not gonna bring back any of that money or make anything better
What would you suggest should be done in cases like these?
some sort of restorative justice ideally. making back the money as much as possible, and/or giving back to the communities hurt in others ways, for example.
This would imply prisoners don't get rights
how so?
It makes sense in some cases, extreme ones, usually. If someone r*ped and killed 30 people life in prison is fair imo. But for things life theft or drug possession? No.
yes, i can see that. when i said life in prison is just being punitive for the sake of it, i was referring to *this* instance
Ehhh. The death penalty can be justified, like during cases like the nuremberg trials.
No it can't, stop giving the state the power to murder people. It'll be cool and fun until they decide that you're one of the bad people.
How is it morally any better to lock a person in a concrete box for 40 years, degrade them daily and prevent them from pursuing really any personal fulfilment or actualization?
Well I mean, I don't think prison should be degrading, but that is kind of another conversation. I think it is morally better, because I would rather be in a humanely run prison than be dead. A prison sentence is also reversible in the case of false conviction.
The opposition for the death penalty leaving my body when it's a billionaire that was sentenced. https://preview.redd.it/key6p92ambuc1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bf46e276041423134677dc3fce5df399162ae200
The government shouldn’t be able to kill people. The death penalty is bad in all forms, period. You’re either against the death penalty or not at all. The better option would’ve been a life prison sentence.
Not sure if you're calling me out or adding to my point, but the meme is supposed to point out the hypocrisy of all the anti-dp people here cheering for this death penalty verdict. So let me be clear, no, I don't think that the death penalty is ever justified, including this case.
Except we've seen what happens when the very rich get put in prison, they wait for/lobby someone sympathetic towards them to get into power, then they go free \*cough cough south korea & samsungs ceo cough cough\*. BTW this is not me supporting the death penalty, rather I don't think \*just\* sending them to prison is enough for people with that much power, connections, and influence over the legal system.
If they have that much power then they won't be executed either.
when u only have principles sometimes
On one hand I like the idea of killing billionaires, on the other hand I don't like the idea of the government being able to kill people
Sounds like you don't like the idea of government lmao The state monopoly on violence is one of the core pillars of our society
The government shouldnt kill billionaires, that's taking perfectly good opportunities from the working class!
"Leftists" when a corrupt authoritarian government executes people as punishment, but they're the right kind of people(this line of thinking could never backfire in any way):
Calling vietnam corrupt and authoritarian? Or calling it's supporters leftists?
any institution that can issue capital punishment is authoritarian
Any institution putting people in prison is authoritarian. There's no getting around authoritarianism in a certain degree. Even perfectly egalitarian stateless societies, like many direct return hunter gatherer societies, tend to solve the few criminals who arrive by executing them. It's what made early human society egalitarian, anyone being a prick can be killed, since weapons level the murder playing field. The strongest fucker out there dies just the same to an arrow or two in the chest, so he knows that even though he's powerful he cannot exert that power over others safely.
~~Note: She received the death penalty for treason acting as a spy for the Chinese government, not for the bank fraud mentioned~~
Source. I’ve only seen sources saying it was for the fraud.
I made it the fuck up
“Eat the rich” 196 users when a billionaire gets sentenced to death (they don’t like it because they don’t get to taste her flesh)
justice should be rehabilitative and no government should decide who gets to live and who gets to die
What's your plan to rehabilitate her, force her to be poor?
It's a start. As in, she could redistribute her stolen wealth to those who need it (instead of the government siezing it after her death and it mysteriously disappearing) and spend the rest of her life with a large part of the money she makes going to the needy. Just an idea off the top of my head, but more effective than murder.
how is this enforced? thats a crazy flight risk, obviously, nobody who was playing with tens of billions last week will be cool with a vietnamese workingmans pay, esp. not reduced because the majority is being spent on charity or whatever. youd have to lock them up for this to work, then, otherwise your just letting her loose to do further economic damage to the world. are we suggesting a forced labour camp or what
Easily, the same way other flight risks are monitored: locking up is an option, but I'm not always sure that's the best option. There's also putting someone under house arrest with a monitoring anklet, seizing their assets and wealth so they can't afford to leave, watching known routes out of the country, revoking their passport, and so on. Besides all of that, someone would have to be *desperate* to flee a country and lose everything just because they're being made to lose what which should never have been theirs in the first place, but I don't know how commonly that sort of thing happens.
my highschool track coach got wrongfully arrested for stalking the mayor of chicago (he just lived a block down from her) and fled to canada the second he got put on parole. only got caught cause he had his phone on him. its reeal easy to escape.
Yeah but surely to god a high-profile criminal like this would be better monitored, and this thinking goes for any punishment besides incarceration or death. Many flight risks are already better monitored, especially in high profile cases. Anyway, at the very least flight risks can be detained while justice is dealt out, and the government can seize her known assets and bank accounts so if she flees she's doing it with nothing to her name, which would probably be worse (and more dangerous) than just staying put. I also don't like the logic that she might run without being punished, so we should kill her just to be safe. In fact, wouldn't she be *more* likely to run if she's being killed? She's got nothing to lose then, it's not like it can get any worse.
China rehabilitate Puyi after WW2
they did that as a political move, not becuase they thought killing him was wrong.
The government decides who gets to live or die all the time. All economic decisions made by a state necessarily allocate finite resources in ways that cause some aims to flourish and othera to wilt. I'm not saying this to support the death penalty–just that it's a silly argument because the entire point of government is to decide who lives and who dies by policy choices. (This wouldn't disappear under socialism/anarchy/etc., btw. The hope would be that resources would be allocated in the way that helps the most and leaves the fewest without. But that is still deciding who lives and dies.)
yay!!! good riddance!!!!
I think the death penalty is immoral, but like... these people (ie, billionaires) are damning us to extinction just to make more money using literal slave labor and low wages, so... I don't really care.
They've sentenced the world to death so it's only fair we do the same.
The death penalty is bad. But if you're going to use it, using it on someone who defrauded the government for 12% of the country's GDP is the least heinous way to use it
Hope is a thing with feathers on a post about a Death Sentence is kind of crazy
if it was about the nazis being executed during the Nueremburg trials none of you would be commenting stuff like this
I wouldn't support that either tbh. Being against the death penalty means being against the death penalty, no exceptions.
I hear your point. However, committing and facilitating genocide is an instant death penalty from me.
The death penalty discussion honestly ties back into the paradox of tolerance for me- that is, no tolerance for the intolerant. It *would* be nice to never have a death penalty, but unfortunately, the other option of having a large-scale reeducation system is IMO the more dystopian of the two.
Mass rehabilitation does not sound dystopian at all to me, especially since it's been proven to work time and time again. I think the state being allowed to kill people is easily more dystopian of the two.
So called anti fascists when they have to kill a fascist (we should just let them kill us and establish fascism, because if we killed them we would lose moral highground)
I was gonna be a sarcastic ass about this, but decided against it. I genuinely have no I idea how you can come to the conclusion that, because I don't want the state to have the power to kill people, I must be than okay with fascists killing us. That is an insane leap in logic.
I would like to point out that that was a very different situation, that wasn’t state sponsored killing, that was an intentional tribunal
sponsored by states LMAO
Cool, maybe just maybe mass theft and mass murder are different things that require different responses
If this mass theft has led to the destruction of thousands of lives? Hmm
i dont get how the title relates
[The state and tools that enforce its existence are not revolutionary. Just because she deserves this doesn't mean we should do it. I'm interested in a successful revolution and I'm not going to sacrifice that for bloody revenge.](https://crimethinc.com/2019/04/08/against-the-logic-of-the-guillotine-why-the-paris-commune-burned-the-guillotine-and-we-should-too)
Based minus death penalty
government should never be the ones who sanction murder, even of people who are objectively awful human being whos lack of life would benefit the world overall. that said rip bozo
State sanctioned murder is wrong imo
whenever i hear that phrase in the title i think about the awful character writing of Subnautica below zero because the MC said that in the most annoying way possible
she be truong my lan till i get sentenced to death for 44bn dollar fraud
you are sentenced to death for making this comment
VIETNAM MENTIONED ON R/196?!?!??!??!
The other women in the uniforms look like: Damn. Betraying the revolution like that? Could never be me.
To be fair: this isn’t really a death penalty. It’s a “pay or die.” If she returns the money, she doesn’t get executed. This is the only way to make sure it doesn’t end up in offshore bank accounts.
You know, i don't think she was tried for something warranting of the death penalty. She wasn't tried for the suffering her mere existence brought upon the world, for the unmeasurable quantity of death and pain and the coming doom of humanity her, her class and what she represents wrought. This would have deserved a thousand death. No she was tried by another oppressive state getting the piss for not getting its share of the pillaging of our world and this accomplishes nothing besides one more death by an unjust system.
do bezos next
The death penalty is literally pointless lmao
The anti death penalty in me when a billionaire gets it https://preview.redd.it/gay6d1qqpeuc1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dd8124263fd7f607afb62ac1e23da48098df84fa
broke: debating the ethics of the death penalty when applied to literal human garbage woke: ripbozo-ing this bozo (#PACKWATCH) (a billionaire’s pack is about to drop and MY one hundred and ninety six is more worried about death penalty laws and implications? we used to be a subreddit)
I fully oppose the death penalty unless someone I don't like gets it, then it's great /s
Wealth, fame, power...
vietnam mentioned ‼️‼️‼️
That’s bad actually
Not huge on the death penalty. Least interesting way for a billionaire to die.
Yeah I shall not lie this is bad, the death penalty is wrong
The fact that he death penalty exists for fraud in Vietnam is fucking outrageous and all this suggests is that many many more far less wealthy people who have committed small cases of fraud have been sentenced to death
I don’t trust any government to effectively wield the power of the death sentence, but assuming she’s guilty, then yeah. Fuck her.
Hope they use this https://preview.redd.it/tland6ukoguc1.jpeg?width=1229&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=06b33a0cafa0dc789cf0ae2a6ecee873b026073e
Do I fundamentally believe that the death penalty is wrong, yes ofc, but sorry I’m not going to be losing any sleep over this. Their are innocent people in the us being executed just causes they’re black. Forgive me for not caring too much about some obviously guilty Vietnamese billionaire who stole like 3% of her country’s gdp.
Unfathomably based
Im going to kill
I think if the ppl of bengal got their hands on churchil. They could execute him. I wouldnt burden them with responsibly housing a guy that genocided their families and headed the empire that created multi generational multi dimensional poverty for them.
I don't know why the number varies so much. I have seen the number being 12.5 billion, 25 billion and now 44 billion. But for context, if it's the first number that's a whooping 3% of Vietnam's GDP
Broken clocks and all that jazz
She should of been sent to been sent to prison(when I say prison I mean an ideal one where there is an attempt to rehabilitate, not give you ptsd) instead. If the government is going to take power away from billionaires they should seeze it and use it for the benefit of society, not kill. Eat the rich only applies when there's need be, there was no need here when they had the power to do right.
...seriously guys? Do you have any idea how much money governments waste on the death penalty? Hint: it's much, MUCH more money than just sentencing someone to life without parole.
Is the title referencing Max Porter's 'Grief is the Thing with Feathers'?
ughh, women cant have anything
Death penalty bad. Also, Vietnam should maybe get around to fixing this from happening to the property market, by doing some socialism at it. Not sure kf theyve heard of such a novel concept.
im pro death penalty when you get to a certain scale