Vietnam tycoon Truong My Lan sentenced to death in $12.5bn fraud case
Vietnam tycoon Truong My Lan sentenced to death in $12.5bn fraud case
The largest case of fraud in Vietnam’s history has been uncovered as part of a major state anticorruption drive.
You're viewing a single thread.
Wouldn’t life in prison be a better option under socialism/communism instead of the death penalty? I understand the reasoning, but I don’t really see the purpose in executing someone in general, especially over such a crime.
“Setting an example”. Wouldn’t life in prison accomplish the same exact thing?
Why not just let them rot?
It's the death penalty only if she does not return some large percentage of the money. The death penalty here is the incentive for her to actually try to claw back the money. Though western outlets are speculating she'll never be able to recover the 27bn they are asking for. (44bn in damages overall)
I would argue life imprisonment is actually significantly crueler than death, assuming the conditions are anything resembling a US prison, or even most european ones. Either actually work to reform people and treat them with human dignity, or you might as well kill them, really.
iirc, Vietnam (like China) usually commutes death penalty to life in prison.
Yeah I don't really know what to think about it either.
I'm not sure, but it's in line with what the Soviets did:
spoiler
In the first place there is no prison sentence longer than ten years, and few offenders serve that long. The authorities figure that a maximum ten-year constructive program will fit anybody for proper living unless he is irredeemable. There will be some cases, of course, where there is failure, but the idea is to fit the régime to the majority. Right here there will be the question always forthcoming as to what they would do with our own gangster type. Give them a ten-year sentence? Not at all. They have few of them and for armed robbery one may be sentenced to death. No arguments are listed here for or against punishment by death, but in order to understand the absence of a long prison sentence it is necessary to be informed as to what happens to those who would ordinarily be the recipients of such a term. The fellow who murders in a jealous rage or great anger may find himself in for a long treatment in a place for mental abnormals, or he may, if judged sane, be given a sentence of ten years or less. They do not consider this type of murderer to be, usually, a further social menace.
With those disposed of the formulators of the policy believe that a longer sentence for others is not needed. They see no aid anywhere in having one languish in prison beyond that point where a sentence ceases to have the possibility of being constructive and begins to dull the senses and perspective of the prisoner so that he is worthless anywhere. Some of our penologists have said that it is better to keep a man either a brief period or for his life because after a certain time it is practically impossible for him to fit into a society of which he has no knowledge.But even your source says:
or for his life
The argument this is making is that if you sentence a person for 20-40 years, then they’ll be entirely unable to reintegrate back into society once they finish their term; so there’s no point giving someone with an armed robbery charge 25 years, as you inevitably do more social harm then good.
So we’re still back at square one as even your source states that you might as well imprison someone for life.
Also, the source isn’t arguing for or against the death penalty, and they explicitly state that they don’t want to make a stance on it. Instead, they’re saying that a judge should either sentence for 10 years or under, or simply execute a person as there is no societal difference between 25 years in prison or death.
Just to make it clear: "our penologists" is Amerikkkan penologists.