3 ms·

Well I'm hopeful we can move beyond medieval practice and that the presumption of innocence will prevail. Fortunately things seem to be going well for team rule

Well I'm hopeful we can move beyond medieval practice and that the presumption of innocence will prevail. Fortunately things seem to be going well for team rule-of-law.

arrosenberg 4y ago
Again, what presumption of innocence? The bank failed, they should have to give up the bonuses and stock gains. It should be statutory to prevent a moral hazard. > medieval practice Calm down, no one said we should hang, draw and quarter them, exile them, or do anything untoward. It's a capitalist system, and this is a capitalist penalty.
- mgraczyk 4y ago
  You said "1,000 years ago if the crops failed, and the peasants started going hungry, either the priest or the lord was blamed." I'm saying we should not look to the distant past for guidance on how to handle situations like this. The presumption of innocence applies here because we shouldn't punish individual bank employees unless we demonstrate to a jury of their peers that they broke a law that existed at the time they broke the law. The default should be they keep their bonus and if they broke the law, they pay a fine. Fortunately they are protected by the constitution, there is no possible way the government can take their money without a trial.
  - arrosenberg 4y ago
    It's an analogy about leadership? I didn't suggest a medieval punishment and I obviously recognize we don't do bills of attainder in America. I'm speaking for what the average person is feeling. Literally started off with saying "the average person is sick of seeing rich people get away with it". But again, what presumption of innocence? I'm saying that if you are a bank CEO and your bank fails, it doesn't actually matter whether a reasonable choice was made or not. Bank failures affect all Americans, so there should be a penalty for causing that disruption. Most people would call that fair.

Well I'm hopeful we can move beyond medieval practice and that the presumption of innocence will prevail. Fortunately things seem to be going well for team rule-of-law.

arrosenberg 4y ago

Again, what presumption of innocence? The bank failed, they should have to give up the bonuses and stock gains. It should be statutory to prevent a moral hazard. > medieval practice Calm down, no one said we should hang, draw and quarter them, exile them, or do anything untoward. It's a capitalist system, and this is a capitalist penalty.

mgraczyk 4y ago
You said "1,000 years ago if the crops failed, and the peasants started going hungry, either the priest or the lord was blamed." I'm saying we should not look to the distant past for guidance on how to handle situations like this. The presumption of innocence applies here because we shouldn't punish individual bank employees unless we demonstrate to a jury of their peers that they broke a law that existed at the time they broke the law. The default should be they keep their bonus and if they broke the law, they pay a fine. Fortunately they are protected by the constitution, there is no possible way the government can take their money without a trial.
- arrosenberg 4y ago
  It's an analogy about leadership? I didn't suggest a medieval punishment and I obviously recognize we don't do bills of attainder in America. I'm speaking for what the average person is feeling. Literally started off with saying "the average person is sick of seeing rich people get away with it". But again, what presumption of innocence? I'm saying that if you are a bank CEO and your bank fails, it doesn't actually matter whether a reasonable choice was made or not. Bank failures affect all Americans, so there should be a penalty for causing that disruption. Most people would call that fair.