4 ms·

Sentenced to 1 year and 15 days for stealing the Mona Lisa, what a laughable punishment compared to today’s standards.(also, Picasso was accused and never convi

Sentenced to 1 year and 15 days for stealing the Mona Lisa, what a laughable punishment compared to today’s standards.(also, Picasso was accused and never convicted, Vincenzo Peruggia was the actual thief that was convicted)

nguyenkien 2y ago
Have you consider living conditions in prison from that time?
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  i think most people nowadays would make the trade
- amelius 2y ago
  You can use the walls as your canvas.
treetalker 2y ago
And to be clear, Peruggia was sentenced to that time. Picasso was never sentenced. Today's standards are indeed different: if rich or famous enough, you can commit dozens of felonies, receive no prison time or other actual punishment, and be sworn in as president!
- imchillyb 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - fredfoo 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - lucasban 2y ago
      One of the fastest examples of Godwin’s law I’ve seen
      - fredfoo 2y ago
        The trouble with avoiding Hitler analogies because of Godwin's law is that it allows the particularly cynical to emulate Hitler and avoid criticism.
    - ripped_britches 2y ago
      Is this really what’s going on at HN this morning?
    - dgfitz 2y ago
      Lmgtfy
      - fredfoo 2y ago
        Try: Traudl Junge
  - ben_w 2y ago
    Dozens of felony convictions, the jury agreed with the prosecution. Lying under oath was also what got Bill Clinton impeached, and that too is "just words". That said, the claim that this unduly influenced the previous election is, IMO, probably incorrect: that Trump is a philanderer was known in 2016, and his conviction for these offences was known by the 2024 election, and yet he still won.
    - Benanov 2y ago
      AIUI Bill Clinton did not lie: The way I heard it, the government used a specific language for "have sexual relations with" (hereinafter HSRW): A HSRW B if the mouth, hands, or genitals of A touch the genitals of B. Any hackernews regular would notice that HSRW is not associative - as in it is entirely possible for A HSRW B to be true, but B HSRW A to be false; in fact this was the case for if A's mouth touches B's genitals; A HSRW B but !(B HSRW A). You can whine and plead and ask the question 4,000 times, but at the end of the day, if one don't understand logic, you might be a Republican Senator in the 1990's.
      - mlyle 2y ago
        Clinton's claim was effectively that he believed the definition was not associative for that specific statement. There was also the later statement which he described Monica's statement about having not had a sexual relationship as true. The trial court disagreed that these statements truthfully responded to the deposition, and fined him for his misleading answer.
    - ANewFormation 2y ago
      You know in the 'bad guy countries' where political enemies are imprisoned by the political establishment? They also still generally hold trials for them, and convict them, while still offering them the rights and liberties afforded to any other defendant. For instance in Russia, their Supreme Court actually threw out the first conviction of Navalny on embezzlement charges. The local case itself was a shit show, but what else would you call a conviction in a case based largely on the words of a serial liar of undoubtedly near zero character, who also had a financial and vindictive motivation to lie? And I'm not talking about Navalny's case there, but imagine I was. Your opinion should not change if you're being logically consistent. This is the reason that these trials sent Trump's popularity surging, and very possibly being the reason he won the popular vote. It seems that not only were they shit shows, but because they are seen as being motivated by the person being charged, rather than by the acts alleged. FWIW, this does not mean he's innocent. It just means that if he wasn't who he is, none of these cases, all launched just in time to try to interfere with the election, would have happened.
  - kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
    New York convicted him for his pre-presidential criminal activity documented in paperwork. It has nothing to do with his criminality as president.
- Willingham 2y ago
  Thanks, I updated the response (:
- gottorf 2y ago
  > Today's standards are indeed different The rulers of yesteryear are surely grateful that, in time, even the worst sins get washed away. "Politicians used to be honorable" must be as commonly said across generations as "kids these days are just so disrespectful".
mannykannot 2y ago
I don't think it then had the near-mythic reverence it now commands, and the theft was partly responsible for bringing its current status about.

nguyenkien 2y ago

Have you consider living conditions in prison from that time?

whimsicalism 2y ago
i think most people nowadays would make the trade
amelius 2y ago
You can use the walls as your canvas.

treetalker 2y ago

And to be clear, Peruggia was sentenced to that time. Picasso was never sentenced. Today's standards are indeed different: if rich or famous enough, you can commit dozens of felonies, receive no prison time or other actual punishment, and be sworn in as president!

imchillyb 2y ago
[flagged]
- fredfoo 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - lucasban 2y ago
    One of the fastest examples of Godwin’s law I’ve seen
    - fredfoo 2y ago
      The trouble with avoiding Hitler analogies because of Godwin's law is that it allows the particularly cynical to emulate Hitler and avoid criticism.
  - ripped_britches 2y ago
    Is this really what’s going on at HN this morning?
  - dgfitz 2y ago
    Lmgtfy
    - fredfoo 2y ago
      Try: Traudl Junge
- ben_w 2y ago
  Dozens of felony convictions, the jury agreed with the prosecution. Lying under oath was also what got Bill Clinton impeached, and that too is "just words". That said, the claim that this unduly influenced the previous election is, IMO, probably incorrect: that Trump is a philanderer was known in 2016, and his conviction for these offences was known by the 2024 election, and yet he still won.
  - Benanov 2y ago
    AIUI Bill Clinton did not lie: The way I heard it, the government used a specific language for "have sexual relations with" (hereinafter HSRW): A HSRW B if the mouth, hands, or genitals of A touch the genitals of B. Any hackernews regular would notice that HSRW is not associative - as in it is entirely possible for A HSRW B to be true, but B HSRW A to be false; in fact this was the case for if A's mouth touches B's genitals; A HSRW B but !(B HSRW A). You can whine and plead and ask the question 4,000 times, but at the end of the day, if one don't understand logic, you might be a Republican Senator in the 1990's.
    - mlyle 2y ago
      Clinton's claim was effectively that he believed the definition was not associative for that specific statement. There was also the later statement which he described Monica's statement about having not had a sexual relationship as true. The trial court disagreed that these statements truthfully responded to the deposition, and fined him for his misleading answer.
  - ANewFormation 2y ago
    You know in the 'bad guy countries' where political enemies are imprisoned by the political establishment? They also still generally hold trials for them, and convict them, while still offering them the rights and liberties afforded to any other defendant. For instance in Russia, their Supreme Court actually threw out the first conviction of Navalny on embezzlement charges. The local case itself was a shit show, but what else would you call a conviction in a case based largely on the words of a serial liar of undoubtedly near zero character, who also had a financial and vindictive motivation to lie? And I'm not talking about Navalny's case there, but imagine I was. Your opinion should not change if you're being logically consistent. This is the reason that these trials sent Trump's popularity surging, and very possibly being the reason he won the popular vote. It seems that not only were they shit shows, but because they are seen as being motivated by the person being charged, rather than by the acts alleged. FWIW, this does not mean he's innocent. It just means that if he wasn't who he is, none of these cases, all launched just in time to try to interfere with the election, would have happened.
- kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
  New York convicted him for his pre-presidential criminal activity documented in paperwork. It has nothing to do with his criminality as president.
Willingham 2y ago
Thanks, I updated the response (:
gottorf 2y ago
> Today's standards are indeed different The rulers of yesteryear are surely grateful that, in time, even the worst sins get washed away. "Politicians used to be honorable" must be as commonly said across generations as "kids these days are just so disrespectful".

mannykannot 2y ago

I don't think it then had the near-mythic reverence it now commands, and the theft was partly responsible for bringing its current status about.