There's a lot to unpack in this little comment! First of all - HN is a website where many different people, with different views post comments and have discuss

There's a lot to unpack in this little comment! First of all - HN is a website where many different people, with different views post comments and have discussions/debates. Declaring that there's one singular view while ignoring the dozens of debates in comment sections all over the front page is kind of absurd. Some people don't think prisons work, some do. The voices calling for prison reform or abolishment may not be the same voices calling for CEO imprisonment. Second - The idea that the law should be applied to everyone with the same vigor is not at odds with wanting to change bad laws. If the law can send a peon to prison for years, it should just as well send a CEO to prison for years too. Hell, if I think a law is bad and needs to change, having a CEO face consequences for it might cause a rare circumstance where a CEO uses their position and influence to effect the change. Third - wanting prisons that actually rehabilitate or deter or whatever is often advocating for prison reform, not consequence-free law-breaking. I can want a murderer sent to prison at the same time I want make prisons actually effective, in fact it's pretty consistent no? Fourth a lot of voices are louder when a CEO or official is suspect of a crime since (as in this case) often they get away with crimes far worse than those committed by people who are severely punished. Even when the ceo/official is blatantly guilty. Even more so when the ceo and officials commit additional crimes and frame innocents for them. Fifth, in the spirit of "turnabout is fair play" - (again as in this case) the CEOs and officials that wanted to stomp out the bad actors and be tough on the crime should not be hypocritical and accept that the crimes they committed need to be stomped out and have tough consequences.