5 ms·

>It's going to take a few more years with the appeal and in all cases he will never step foot in prison, which is ironic given that Sarkozy was a huge proponent

>It's going to take a few more years with the appeal and in all cases he will never step foot in prison, which is ironic given that Sarkozy was a huge proponent of Zero Tolerance policies. Hard to say if this is good or bad. On the one hand, no one is above the law. But sending presidents to prison for anything short of murder is a really risky proposition, and an extremely slippery slope. There's a reason we've never done it in the US, and it's not for any lack of corruption.

saiya-jin 6y ago
Risky for what? To show that they are a common citizens from flesh an bones, or untouchable deities who can have blood of literally millions on their hands and live a happy easy life? Presidents are humans like us. Make them at least a bit responsible for their choices when in power, and there might be more good in the world. If they are crooks (which many are), there is absolutely 0 reason why they shouldn't be punished same as everybody else. Unless obviously you don't trust justice system at all. But even then the solution isn't to remove presidents from it, rather than fixing it.
- zepto 6y ago
  There are two obvious risks: 1. The system may be used as a political weapon. I.e. the president may be used as a scapegoat for something, or be framed. 2. Fearing #1 or fearing legitimate prosecution, the president may try to illegitimately hold on to power. Both definitely happen in various countries.
  - conradfr 6y ago
    Nicolas Sarkozy has been sentenced for facts happening when he was no longer president though. Actually, the French president enjoys immunity during his term.
arkh 6y ago
> Hard to say if this is good or bad. On the one hand, no one is above the law. But sending presidents to prison for anything short of murder is a really risky proposition, and an extremely slippery slope. There's a reason we've never done it in the US, and it's not for any lack of corruption. So if you're a corrupt politician, managing to become president should be a "get out of jail free card"? No the root problem is those people are not investigated often enough and manage to profit from their crimes for decades before being found "unfit for prison life". Any politician should be under scrutiny the day they get voted in. Stasi like but instead of checking the plebs, check those in power.
- aphextron 6y ago
  >So if you're a corrupt politician, managing to become president should be a "get out of jail free card"? Yes. In fact, the US constitution explicitly allows this via pardoning. Sending presidents to jail has rarely ever worked out well in history. It becomes an inherently political power struggle, and weaponizes the justice system for political purposes. Anything short of cold blooded murder can be twisted and skewed into something either worse or not as bad as it actually is, depending on your political leaning. And like it or not, we have to share this country with 50% of the population who disagree with us politically. The alternative is disenfranchisement and civil unrest.
  - watwut 6y ago
    Making president "do what you want law dont apply to you" is policising the justice system. And it advantages parties willing to break law.
    - inglor_cz 6y ago
      There is no clean separation of the political world and the judicial system. For example, impeachments are modelled after trials, but they are clearly of very political nature. At the end of the day, up there in Washington, Mutually Assured Destruction prevails. Whatever you unleash on your opponents when in power, will be unleashed upon you when the winds change. In that situation, both Rs and Ds are better off only prosecuting outright murderers. This isn't new, this was a problem already in Ancient Greece. Power and justice do not really mix well.
      - watwut 6y ago
        Impeachement is literally political process, intended to be political. It is not actually trying to be justice at all. And, the fact that high enough politician gets away with everything is why the contemporary American politics have issues it has.
kowlo 6y ago
> There's a reason we've never done it in the US, and it's not for any lack of corruption. What reason?
- xhkkffbf 6y ago
  There are several I can think of off hand. 1) Political debate can be thwarted by legal charges. Imagine if some of the politicians who supported Rosa Parks were indicted as co-conspirators in bus rule evasion. It's kind of a silly idea, but only because of tradition. The reality is that many people pushing for political change are asking for legal relief from laws. In other words, they want to do what's forbidden. That sounds like they want to break the laws. 2) It discourages people from leaving office because they're afraid they'll be jailed once they leave.
  - watwut 6y ago
    > Imagine if some of the politicians who supported Rosa Parks were indicted as co-conspirators in bus rule evasion. It so happens that not using buses was legal. In fact, even Rosa Parks was technically in the legal right to stay sit there - not that anyone cared (including her). But, back then, being arrested or beaten was pretty normal for blacks when sitting in wrong place or refusing to stand. Black political players included - like Rosa Parks herself.
- fmajid 6y ago
  Class solidarity between criminals and would-be criminals.
- adolph 6y ago
  From my point of view the root problem is "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" It is often difficult to evaluate the veracity of claims of one custodian about another. In the US the relatively short terms of office mean that the evaluation is performed by voters on a regular schedule and the loose coupling of legal directives to actual population behavior means that a large component of cooperation is based on the prestige of the director. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%...
jcranmer 6y ago
There's a running joke in Illinois that the Governor's State College is actually a prison, given the frequency with which Illinois governors end up in prison after their terms end.
- posterboy 6y ago
  that's not a very sofisticated joke is it? Is it a joke to you?

saiya-jin 6y ago

Risky for what? To show that they are a common citizens from flesh an bones, or untouchable deities who can have blood of literally millions on their hands and live a happy easy life? Presidents are humans like us. Make them at least a bit responsible for their choices when in power, and there might be more good in the world. If they are crooks (which many are), there is absolutely 0 reason why they shouldn't be punished same as everybody else. Unless obviously you don't trust justice system at all. But even then the solution isn't to remove presidents from it, rather than fixing it.

zepto 6y ago
There are two obvious risks: 1. The system may be used as a political weapon. I.e. the president may be used as a scapegoat for something, or be framed. 2. Fearing #1 or fearing legitimate prosecution, the president may try to illegitimately hold on to power. Both definitely happen in various countries.
- conradfr 6y ago
  Nicolas Sarkozy has been sentenced for facts happening when he was no longer president though. Actually, the French president enjoys immunity during his term.

arkh 6y ago

> Hard to say if this is good or bad. On the one hand, no one is above the law. But sending presidents to prison for anything short of murder is a really risky proposition, and an extremely slippery slope. There's a reason we've never done it in the US, and it's not for any lack of corruption. So if you're a corrupt politician, managing to become president should be a "get out of jail free card"? No the root problem is those people are not investigated often enough and manage to profit from their crimes for decades before being found "unfit for prison life". Any politician should be under scrutiny the day they get voted in. Stasi like but instead of checking the plebs, check those in power.

aphextron 6y ago
>So if you're a corrupt politician, managing to become president should be a "get out of jail free card"? Yes. In fact, the US constitution explicitly allows this via pardoning. Sending presidents to jail has rarely ever worked out well in history. It becomes an inherently political power struggle, and weaponizes the justice system for political purposes. Anything short of cold blooded murder can be twisted and skewed into something either worse or not as bad as it actually is, depending on your political leaning. And like it or not, we have to share this country with 50% of the population who disagree with us politically. The alternative is disenfranchisement and civil unrest.
- watwut 6y ago
  Making president "do what you want law dont apply to you" is policising the justice system. And it advantages parties willing to break law.
  - inglor_cz 6y ago
    There is no clean separation of the political world and the judicial system. For example, impeachments are modelled after trials, but they are clearly of very political nature. At the end of the day, up there in Washington, Mutually Assured Destruction prevails. Whatever you unleash on your opponents when in power, will be unleashed upon you when the winds change. In that situation, both Rs and Ds are better off only prosecuting outright murderers. This isn't new, this was a problem already in Ancient Greece. Power and justice do not really mix well.
    - watwut 6y ago
      Impeachement is literally political process, intended to be political. It is not actually trying to be justice at all. And, the fact that high enough politician gets away with everything is why the contemporary American politics have issues it has.

kowlo 6y ago

> There's a reason we've never done it in the US, and it's not for any lack of corruption. What reason?

xhkkffbf 6y ago
There are several I can think of off hand. 1) Political debate can be thwarted by legal charges. Imagine if some of the politicians who supported Rosa Parks were indicted as co-conspirators in bus rule evasion. It's kind of a silly idea, but only because of tradition. The reality is that many people pushing for political change are asking for legal relief from laws. In other words, they want to do what's forbidden. That sounds like they want to break the laws. 2) It discourages people from leaving office because they're afraid they'll be jailed once they leave.
- watwut 6y ago
  > Imagine if some of the politicians who supported Rosa Parks were indicted as co-conspirators in bus rule evasion. It so happens that not using buses was legal. In fact, even Rosa Parks was technically in the legal right to stay sit there - not that anyone cared (including her). But, back then, being arrested or beaten was pretty normal for blacks when sitting in wrong place or refusing to stand. Black political players included - like Rosa Parks herself.
fmajid 6y ago
Class solidarity between criminals and would-be criminals.
adolph 6y ago
From my point of view the root problem is "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" It is often difficult to evaluate the veracity of claims of one custodian about another. In the US the relatively short terms of office mean that the evaluation is performed by voters on a regular schedule and the loose coupling of legal directives to actual population behavior means that a large component of cooperation is based on the prestige of the director. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%...

jcranmer 6y ago

There's a running joke in Illinois that the Governor's State College is actually a prison, given the frequency with which Illinois governors end up in prison after their terms end.

posterboy 6y ago
that's not a very sofisticated joke is it? Is it a joke to you?