4 ms·
Did you know they only ever got Al Capone on tax evasion? Would you draw a similar conclusion in that case, or maybe did the effort put into pinning Capone on t
by afterburner 5y ago
Did you know they only ever got Al Capone on tax evasion? Would you draw a similar conclusion in that case, or maybe did the effort put into pinning Capone on tax evasion have more to do with how he was running a murderous criminal organization for many years?
- codeflo 5y agoIsn’t Al Capone’s tax evasion conviction usually mentioned as a bit of a joke? I don’t see how anyone can cite it as an example of the system working perfectly fine. Ignoring for a moment that this was in a very different era, to me, there are only two possible conclusions from this: (a) The conviction was legitimate. This means that if only he had been a bit more thorough about laundering his money, he’d have gotten away with organized murder. (b) The conviction was ultimately politically motivated, because it became a public embarrassment that he couldn’t be convicted of anything. But if the state really wants to get rid of someone, a prosecutor will find a way, so they did. And I seriously don’t know which possibility is more frightening.
- himinlomax 5y agoMontesquieu: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_is_the_enemy_of_good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_is_the_enemy_of_good
- notch656a 5y ago(b) is far more terrifying. I'd rather 1000 murderers get away than a single case of a prosecutor have that kind of discretionary power to fuck over essentially anyone just for selective enforcement. The law should be applied equally.
- afterburner 5y agoYou think the state imprisoning a crime boss is frightening?
- coldtea 5y ago>Did you know they only ever got Al Capone on tax evasion? Would you draw a similar conclusion in that case Yeah. Gangster? Police doesn't care or is on the payroll. The IRS however will get you -- it will only let the very rich off.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]