4 ms·

I'm not against the death penalty, in principle, but applying it risks both the moral and, slightly more more important, the judicial legitimacy of the system.

I'm not against the death penalty, in principle, but applying it risks both the moral and, slightly more more important, the judicial legitimacy of the system. Therefore, if it is to be considered and applied then moral care and sound judicial logic are paramount. Whatever the amount of stolen money, currency theft on its own it will never rise to the objective moral and logical base-level required to apply the death penalty. If the governments of developing nations want to be seen as other than basketcases, they need to be more judicious than this.

brhsagain 3y ago
Why are financial crimes morally exempt in a way that, say, violent crime is not, even if the aggregate damage from the financial crime is greater? Unless you’re arguing that this isn’t possible?
- scrubs 3y ago
  I agree. In my corner of the universe (the US) I think the sec, Finra, doj, fbi need the pendulum to swing back 35% to correct for being too nice. What would happen if we had two kinds of c-corps? One fairly if strictly regulated leading to fines, civil cases, and criminal cases in exceptions And option two ... Very light regulation but if a regulatory agency or fbi finds malfeasance only criminal charges, jail time, loss of lawyer license, inability to serve at public companies and more ie. hardball. Maybe the elites should choose their risk level. I think it'd say a lot.
jbm 3y ago
> Whatever the amount of stolen money, currency theft on its own it will never rise to the objective moral and logical base-level required to apply the death penalty If we take it as a given that people spend large parts of their lives, mostly forced (as in they would not work if they didn't have to), we can see money as being a direct representation of human life. If someone stole X dollars, you could extrapolate it to entire lives that were stolen. How many suicides happen over money for this very reason? Making a case for the death penalty given those priors is not hard, especially for stealing from the impoverished.

brhsagain 3y ago

Why are financial crimes morally exempt in a way that, say, violent crime is not, even if the aggregate damage from the financial crime is greater? Unless you’re arguing that this isn’t possible?

scrubs 3y ago
I agree. In my corner of the universe (the US) I think the sec, Finra, doj, fbi need the pendulum to swing back 35% to correct for being too nice. What would happen if we had two kinds of c-corps? One fairly if strictly regulated leading to fines, civil cases, and criminal cases in exceptions And option two ... Very light regulation but if a regulatory agency or fbi finds malfeasance only criminal charges, jail time, loss of lawyer license, inability to serve at public companies and more ie. hardball. Maybe the elites should choose their risk level. I think it'd say a lot.

jbm 3y ago

> Whatever the amount of stolen money, currency theft on its own it will never rise to the objective moral and logical base-level required to apply the death penalty If we take it as a given that people spend large parts of their lives, mostly forced (as in they would not work if they didn't have to), we can see money as being a direct representation of human life. If someone stole X dollars, you could extrapolate it to entire lives that were stolen. How many suicides happen over money for this very reason? Making a case for the death penalty given those priors is not hard, especially for stealing from the impoverished.