I kind of see it as the opposite of barbaric. Someone stealing billions of dollars has caused far far far more net harm than someone committing a one off violent crime. I guess roughly tying consequences to harm caused seems less barbaric to me

Poverty kills people. (Statistically - you can't say "that person died from poverty", but you can say that a certain number of deaths were due to poverty.)

$27 billion is a lot of people in poverty who otherwise wouldn't be. How many people died (or will) from that? Died from lack of food, lack of shelter, lack of medical care, lack of hope?

Mind you, I'm not sure that the death penalty is the right answer. But if you accept the death penalty for murder, it's not completely absurd in this situation.

Perhaps you have things a bit backwards.

The US wasn't trying to conquer North Vietnam. North Vietnam was trying to conquer South Vietnam (for a political-economic "principle"). The US was, yes, trying to stop expansion of a political-economic principle that the US considered hostile, but also to defend South Vietnam from attack.

Why, in your view, does the US get the blame rather than North Vietnam and/or the USSR?

Well then may all Meta workers rest in peace, was great while it lasted.

How have meta employees stolen money?

> has caused far far far more net harm than

Not necessarily agreeing about this case, but a relevant quote:

> “Do you understand what I'm saying?" shouted Moist. "You can't just go around killing people!"

> "Why Not? You Do." The golem lowered his arm.

> "What?" snapped Moist. "I do not! Who told you that?"

> "I Worked It Out. You Have Killed Two Point Three Three Eight People," said the golem calmly.

> "I have never laid a finger on anyone in my life, Mr Pump. I may be––all the things you know I am, but I am not a killer! I have never so much as drawn a sword!"

> "No, You Have Not. But You Have Stolen, Embezzled, Defrauded And Swindled Without Discrimination, Mr Lipvig. You Have Ruined Businesses And Destroyed Jobs. When Banks Fail, It Is Seldom Bankers Who Starve. Your Actions Have Taken Money From Those Who Had Little Enough To Begin With. In A Myriad Small Ways You Have Hastened The Deaths Of Many. You Do Not Know Them. You Did Not See Them Bleed. But You Snatched Bread From Their Mouths And Tore Clothes From Their Backs. For Sport, Mr Lipvig. For Sport. For The Joy Of The Game.”

-- Going Postal by Terry Pratchett

And if I remember correctly, Mr Lipvig got the death penalty as well.

He was just given the, um, "choice", of taking the leap into the death penalty, or becoming the virtual prisoner of an extremely powerful "guardian angel". Who was in actuality more of a ruthless probation officer.

The message was clear, we should not be blind to the harm that indifference to corruption metes out on the larger society.

No sir, that was the late Alfred Spangler, and while hanging was rather excessive, at least he wasn't put into the scorpion-pit like a mime.

But slightly-more-seriously, I wouldn't read too far into the surface of the Ankh-Morpork dictatorship and criminal-justice system as a direct moral signpost for our times, since sometimes a plot device is just a plot device.

You will always get a +1 from me if you quote Mr Pratchett

Shades of Rimmer being prosecuted by the Inquisitor.

She owned more of a bank than she was supposed to, and used that bank to get bigger loans than she would normally be able to get, and then she bought commercial real estate with those loans.

Where does the net harm come in here? I guess other mega rich property developers were prevented from acquiring the commercial real estate...maybe a few hundred millionaires were harmed by this billionaire. Is there anything more than that?

Not entirely. She used almost 1,000 fake loan applications to to appropriate the $12.5b from the bank. Then 3 employees at the bank committed suicide from October 6th-14th in 2022 which resulted in a bank run.

There are 82 other defendents, many of them being leadership at the bank, with 5 of them in hiding.

There is some efficiency loss: capital was deployed less efficiently than it would have otherwise been, and that costs money, which means it costs lives.

Depending on the particularities of the corruption/fraud, that could be in the millions, could be in the billions. So anywhere from one human life to thousands. It's just diffuse, so we can't pinpoint a particular person who died due to it, just society at large.

(Not saying I support the death penalty for this.)

> Where does the net harm come in here?

The harm comes from the possible worlds where the loans don't get paid back. That's the reason why there are loan limits in the first place.

Also if banks are loaning money to her, that's money that's not being loaned to other people.

This sounds like an argument for revenge justice.

I think of the death penalty as a way to remove someone from society who is dangerous and where there is no foreseeable path to freedom. When their freedom means others are likely be assaulted and killed if they are allowed to go free again.

It's an argument for example setting, that this is the consequence of causing such an enormous amount of harm to society, including indirect and possibly direct deaths, for nothing put personal material gain. Deterrence. And the amount of damage these acts cause mean that even a 1% improvement in reducing the rate at which this happens, is worth it. The general problem with the death penalty is the risk of wrongful convictions, which is indeed a huge problem when applying it for things such as simple murder, as parts of the US have shown time and time again. Luckily, when talking about this kind of case, that's pretty much not an issue. "Whoops, we got the wrong person who stole $27 billion, it was actually someone else from a different town who looked similar!" is not something you'll hear. Framing someone in this way to get them killed is also a hilarious hypothetical, a less efficient way to get rid of someone is hardly imaginable.

I'd go as far as to say it's outrageous to argue that someone capable of the above is not dangerous to society and how they would have a foreseeable path to freedom. Their freedom would indeed come at a big risk of repeat grave harm to society. Another problem with imprisonment in cases like these is that these are exactly the cases which end up getting pardoned X years from now because parts of the power structure that they built up are still in place and will at some point come in politically handy for an opportunist.

>When their freedom means others are likely be assaulted and killed if they are allowed to go free again.

"Made to commit suicide" should be equivalent to killed here, and that is the case.

I don’t know the specific of this case or what they do in East and South-East Asia. But we’ve had these discussions before. The point then is raised: say you have a white collar crime that downstream causes life-crippling financial misery for tens of thousands of people. On what grounds can one dismiss capital punishment for that crime as barbaric but then (presumably, by omission) not find that capital punishment for cold-blooded murder is barbaric?

Quite a few in that part of the world impose it for international drug smuggling, and we're talking mules rather than kingpins here. And if you really want to be appalled, look at the ones where adultery or homosexuality are potentially capital crimes.

Why is it more barbaric than death penalty for something like murder? How much damage would 27B in corruption cause to people and society?

Everyone steals in Vietnam.

Every time the communists change positions in the politburo, the new communist in charge arrests the previous one for corruption. And so it goes.

(Nguyen Xuan Phuc, the one who was hailed for zero covid previously, was later arrested for... stealing covid funds. Oh wow, who knew)

There is 0 trust between actual people for the party. People just shut up because the economy is doing fine and people have jobs.

You're yelling at the sky. All these HNers don't even know about To Lam's whole Saltbae scandal and how he still remains on top, let alone all the other grafts and political insider shit that happens.

My friend worked in Vietnam and Laos for several years. Every company had to hire a communist party member on staff who rarely showed up. When they did they would demand everyone go drinking, paid for by the company.

I own a company in Vietnam. I do not do this, and was never asked to do this.

To the best of my knowledge, neither have any of my other colleagues that own businesses.

He worked at a few large companies with offices, and this is what he told me. Maybe you need to be big and legacy with a physical footprint. But this is what he told me. He has a lot of very interesting anecdotes. For example in Laos if you impregnate a woman as a foreigner, you have to marry her, under penalty of death. So his girlfriends were always trying to mess with his condoms, try to get him to have unprotected sex, and various oddities. So he claimed

It seems your friend is prone to tall tales and you are incredibly gullible.

No connection to your username at all...

This particular one appears to be at least partially accurate - forced marriage on penalty of death sounds like a significant exaggeration.

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/international-tra...

Under "Local Laws & Special Circumstances":

> Relationships with Lao citizens: Lao law prohibits cohabitation or sexual contact between foreign citizens and Lao nationals except when the two parties have been married in accordance with Lao Family Law. Any foreigner who cohabitates with or enters into a sexual relationship with a Lao national risks being interrogated, detained, arrested, or fined. Foreigners are not permitted to invite Lao nationals of the opposite sex to their hotel rooms, and police may raid hotel rooms without notice or consent. Foreigners, including U.S. citizens of Lao descent, are not allowed to stay in the homes of Lao nationals, even family, without the prior consent of the village chief and local police.

Yeah these are complete fabrications.

I don’t think so

your friend should stop seeing "girlfriends".

I'm guessing because you don't have to.

A friend's fintech company in Vietnam (it's one that you know) was pretty much told to make room in the C-suite for a very well connected family member to the Northern power brokers. I agree there is no requirement to have a Communist Party member join the company, but someone with connections? Sure.

It matters whether it's a local versus foreign company. If it's run by Vietnamese (or Viet Kieu) or run by foreigners. It mostly depends on how much money is involved, as a small local business is small potatoes, but when you're talking about the companies raising $100M USD in a round, it starts to matter a lot.

And my friend's company wasn't exactly opposed to it, since it's a symbiotic relationship. Have a problem with getting a license? Having "that guy" call his uncle who sits on the regulatory body can expedite it. Of course, you have to share in the wealth so sweetheart investment deals get offered in return.

He told me you can't make it big (think the equivalent of Stripe in the US) without those connections because if you don't, your competitor will and suddenly you'll find that permit you were told would take 3 months has been "delayed".

Anyone who tries to get government approval for things like licenses, etc knows it's a painful process even for the routine stuff. Now image trying to do something "different". The usual response is "you can't do that". The system is pretty much set up to require a back channel to the people in the government who can make or break a company.

Yes, it’s amazing how naive HN is when it comes to these things. This place is super useful for technical knowledge but insanely useless when it comes to situations where lived experience differs from “official” ways the world (is supposed to) work.

The pushback you're receiving is likely due to saying "every company".

The post above says something more along the lines of "large, prosperous, specifically targeted companies".

> you can't make it big (think the equivalent of Stripe in the US)

Hehe. We might be 2nd or 3rd degree connects. Are they that fintech HQed near the crescent mall?

> The system is pretty much set up to require a back channel to the people in the government who can make or break a company

Exactly. Welcome to "emerging markets"

> when you're talking about the companies raising $100M USD in a round, it starts to matter a lot

Lower rounds too. Big reason I got spooked by the VN scene. It's exactly the same kinda shit you'd deal with in China, India, or Indonesia, but way less RoI.

Kinda sad honestly, there is a lot of talent, but leadership and policymakers there don't have the breadth needed to make the next Thailand or Malaysia (despite having the right fundamentals).

If they can attract the successful 2nd and 3rd gen Viet Kieus in the US, Canada, and Australia (the Harvard, UCLA, UNSW, UToronto grads) at the policy level, I think there is a lot of potential.

We have those in the West, they're just called "team building exercises".

Communist parties sound like fun

Ain't no party like a Communist party. The Communists have the music.

From what I've seen in south korea recently, that is pretty chill if all they want to do is go to KTV and drink.

Samsung was forced to hire a bunch of "socialist leaning/political victims" who wants to nationalize the company and turn it into their piggy bank (this will most likely happen after recent election results)

I mean, if they're all corrupt, I don't really feel bad for them going after each other either.

> Death penalty for corruption? That seems barbaric.

I find this a 'curious' pov. If financial fraud is affecting savings of many thousands of people, where savings = lifetime spent toiling, a view one may dare take is that there is little difference in killing someone (essentially robbing them of the leftover lifetime).

In a country like Vietnam, where about 13% of people pay into pensions at all [1], loosing your savings literally will shorten your life. Even if you're in those 13% btw, as you can't live off state-pensions[2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pensions_in_Vietnam#Funding

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pensions_in_Vietnam#State_non-...

EDIT: I like to add that I am against death penalty under any circumstances.

But if you're in the US and are ok with death penalty there, I'd argue you should be, too, in the case at hand.

As someone else said, she stole 6.6% of the GDP

The equivalent in America would be 1.68 trillion dollars, which is 70 million dollars shy of the total amount of outstanding student loan debt in America.

I feel like if you only polled people who owe more in student loan debt than they make in a year if they would push a button to allow the single person who stole 1.68 trillion dollars to be executed by the state in exchange for 96% of their student loan debt vanishing into thin air (but being 1/(number of agreeing people) responsible for her death) then chances are they're pushing that button.

On one hand it's Vietnam where everyone bribes everyone. (Literally. Stealing country funds is a fact of life.)

On the other hand it's 21 billion.

Still rough.

Some people here do pay bribes. I do not. Neither do most people around my age that I know.

I immigrated here 12 years ago. I have a company license, a driving license, proper residency, and so on.

I got every last piece of it by filling out forms, and waiting a normal amount of time. I speak Vietnamese like a small child and have no Vietnamese heritage.

Perhaps some people will report something different, and perhaps they are also correct. However, this is my story.

We're Westerners so we're insulated from low level corruption because we can report to the Tourist Police and our local Consulate or Embassy, who will complain to that Quan's MPS.

The kind of low level corruption your mentioning impacts the working class or middle class (the kind living in a 1 bedroom apartment in D10 with a Honda motorbike) because they have no recourse.

That said, the mid-upper level corruption is very significant. How else do you see retired generals and senior party apparatchiks with a $50/mo pension eating steaks at the Landmark 81 and living in a villa in Thao Dien.

And this is why my SO makes it a principle to always speak in English so she doesn't get Vietnamese service.

Quick question, you talk about D1 / D10 etc.

Are those postcodes or suburbs or something?

> And this is why my SO makes it a principle to always speak in English so she doesn't get Vietnamese service.

That's a general recommendation for any overseas Vietnamese (Viet Kieu) to just pretend not to speak Vietnamese any time they interact with officials. They'll never get aggressive and will usually move onto easier prey.

But you are correct the low level corruption is common. A good story I heard was getting the household registration completed at the police station - bring in forms, call back "you forgot to sign this form", go back and sign the form, a couple weeks later you call "oh, it was actually the wrong form, come back", go back sign another form, a couple weeks later "it's not finished yet", a couple weeks later "you're missing one form".

Finally, they go in, finish that form and say "hey, you've been working hard, let me buy you a coffee" and you slip them the equivalent of $10 USD (about 20x the cost of a coffee). Poof, magic, it's done the next day and the cop will even swing by your home to drop off the paperwork.

A lot of the corruption is simply slow-rolling things until what the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act calls "facilitation payments" are made.

Back when my family built our house a few years ago, we had to pay some bribe for a local officer to get our construction permission, otherwise it will get delayed for who knows how long. On paper, gov's officer's salary is <500usd a month, yet several provincial secretary own large houses and villas. Where does the money come from ? You see this stuff reported once in a while in Vietnamese newspaper, and stuff that are not reported could be worse. Amomg Vietnamese people, government's corruption is well known, happens at every level, and everybody I know is treating it as an open secret.

My very limited experience with Vietnam officials was that you could avoid bribes, but it was much more convenient to just bribe them.

I was going through the land border from Laos to Vietnam and was told to leave some "coffee money" in my passport on both sides of the border. I think it was either 20k or 50k Dong.

Apparently if you did not do this, you would get seen last and they would stamp it perfectly diagonally in the middle of a fresh passport page to try and ruin that page.

No idea if this was actually true because everyone just paid.

Death penalty serves multiple purposes

1. Remove from society, with no additional cost to society. 2. Signaling to dissuade new offenders.

You can go one step further and punish the family, parents, and friends. Seems to be happening in the US for underage mass killers.

It’s a simple, effective, and low cost way to deal with crime of the highest magnitude. Why should it be off limits for corruption?

Any component of a punishment that is intended to deter is wrong. They hypothetical future offenders supposedly being deterred by the punishment are not parties in the defendant's case. Therefore they have no place in the sentencing.

Death penalty should be: take a life, pay with your life.

There is no need to consider deterrence in any shape or form.

The concept of deterrence being a reason for capital punishment only bolsters anti-capital-punishment arguments.

That's not right. Deterrence establishes a causal link between the punished and the criminals of tomorrow, who consider the likely outcome of their crime before committing it.

Punishments have a side effect of deterring. People don't wish to be punished so they don't transgress. It shouldn't be the focus of punishment. One problem is that the severity of punishment can be varied in order to vary the deterrent effect, whereas the punishment should fit the crime. That a certain fair punishment is not sufficiently deterring others is immaterial to a given defendant.

Fair punishments may deter insufficiently. The deterrent effect involves the probability of being caught and convicted. A law enforcement and criminal justice system that is not effective at catching and convicting can just crank up penalties to keep the deterrent effect high.

Well point #2 is obviously not working, and it makes sense, how many murderers are making rational decisions?

Also, who would be deterred by the risk of execution, but not deterred by the risk of a life sentence?

Claiming harsh sentencing is a deterrent is a convenient cover for the real reason - it's about revenge. Because it very obviously isn't a deterrent, at least, not an effective one.

Unless US states that execute people have dramatically lower rates of murder than states that don't, in which case, I'm wrong and stand corrected.

Guess it depends which of rehabilitation or punishment you value most.

Death penalty seems inherently barbaric as in practice you cannot avoid executing people who are not found to be innocent until years or decades later. Even if you think guilt can be proven beyond any doubt, I know of no jurisdiction with an error-free record.

So you say it is barbaric not for executing someone, but for wrongly punishing someone. How is that different for a regular life sentence? Taking someone's liberties wrongly seems just as barbaric.

At least you can return their freedom and try to compensate them for the time unjustly spent in prison.

Without this intending to be a comment on whether it is just or not, there's an interesting caveat to the law that might be of interest.

De jure, here's an amount that the guilty party can repay to avoid the death penalty. I recall it being 3/4 of the amount stolen.

Isn't wiping out 42,000 families livelihood or 3% of your country's GDP not barbaric?

Or is the exchange rate here not favourable to your standards?

Some US states would hand down a mandatory lifetime sentence to someone robbing three families, but no jail time for someone robbing 42,000.

> Death penalty for corruption? That seems barbaric.

Honestly, I think it's fine, but only if reserved for billionaires. That kind of economic power breeds arrogance, which needs something to keep it in check. The quantity has a quality all its own.

The death penalty is definitely not OK for low level people or the sums even a wealthy regular person could have. And I don't even think it should be an option for most violent crime, either.

Basically you are ok for death penalty strictly for other people? Seems quite convenient :D

I also am OK for 100% tax to anyone who's not me or my immediate family.

> Basically you are ok for death penalty strictly for other people? Seems quite convenient :D

Come on. Your objection is meaningless distraction, because it's so general it's an objection to any kind of punishment of anyone proposed by anyone who isn't themselves guilty.

Not really, if I am OK with death penalty for manslaughter, I put myself at risk (or someone I love) to be at the receiving end of that law: it happens to people without really wanting it.

On the other hand, becoming billionaire is both extremely hard, bordering impossible for most people, and it's also an active choice someone who's not already billionaire can make on their way there (so they can always be just enough away from being a billionaire).

That's why to me it's like being in favor for a law against martians: it really doesn't concern anyone of us, so who cares?

> That's why to me it's like being in favor for a law against martians: it really doesn't concern anyone of us, so who cares?

What do you mean? A billionaire committing massive fraud definitely concerns us.

Oh, so you're saying tivert is only in favor of the death penalty for billionaire fraudsters because tivert isn't a billionnaire, not because tivert isn't, and doesn't plan to become a billionaire fraudster?

But how do you know? Is the idea that a billionaire wouldn't be posting to HackerNews?

> I also am OK for 100% tax to anyone who's not me or my immediate family.

Then your money wouldn't be worth anything as no one will want to provide you with a service.

In places like Vietnam and China, billionaires aren't the "apex predators". The Party leadership is.

That is why they can get the death penalty.

Don't get it twisted man. At least in China, they kill party leadership too. In fact, just to make sure no one is holding out on them, they'll take out your wife and mistress too.

In China, the party is almighty, but it won't hesitate to eat it's young, it's parents, or even it's mate.

You’re leaving out a lot of countries that impose death penalties for non-violent acts that are victimless and not even crimes in the West.

For example adultery and apostasy:

“The following countries impose the death penalty for adultery: Afghanistan, Brunei,[1] Iran, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan[citation needed], Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Yemen, Sudan, Qatar.”

”As of July 2020, apostasy by Muslims (ridda) carries the death penalty in the following countries: Afghanistan, Brunei, Iran, the Maldives, Mauritania, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia (implicitly), the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen.”

This is the height of state-sanctioned barbarism left in today’s world.

As it happens quite often, you're mistaken about the apostasy part, don't know about the adultery one.

Apostasy itself isn't punishable; it's when someone "deflects" to the enemy side and colludes with them. At that point it's the 'treason' aspect that carries the punishment, not because someone says they don't believe in something anymore.

This is religious nonsense. Treason is about wars between states, not changing your religion.

Again, showing you don't know nothing!

USA still has the death penalty?

Yes, it does.

But criminal justice in the US is mostly dispensed at the state level of government, and many of the 50 states do not have the death penalty:

https://dpic-cdn.org/production/images/StatesWithWithoutDP-M...

The most recent execution by the federal government was 2021, after a gap of 17 years. A lot depends on who is president.

That sounded unbelievable, but Wikipedia supports it[0]. Last US federal execution in 2003-03-18 was followed by 2020-07-14. The first person executed in 2020 had been on death row for 21 years.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_executed_by_the...

It sounds unbelievable because its not correct[0]:

>Number of executions

>2025 —

>2024 5

>2023 24

>Total 29

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_executed_in_t...

Those are executions by states, not by the U.S. federal government.

It’s the united _states_, not the federal america

I am taking umbrage at your claim that adultery is a "victimless" crime.

However, definitely not death penalty worthy, even if anything ever was!

Who is the victim in adultery? The only injury is to some nebulous honor of the husband or wife. The actual problem is something the three people involved can sort out between themselves like grown-ups. No legal protections are needed.

We generally don’t have honor-based injuries in Western legal systems nowadays. Blasphemy, lèse-majesté, offenses against nobility privileges — these used to be serious crimes but not anymore. Penalizing adultery is part of that same outdated value system.

> Who is the victim in adultery?

Children. If there aren't any children, then sure, call it victimless.

But if there are children, an adulterer is directly harming them[1].

TBH, we often forget about children when dealing in family law. Another example that comes to mind is paternity fraud, where the argument is that there's no need to find the real father if the alleged father can be violently forced into supporting the child.

Everyone forgets that the child who is mislead about their father in that situation is the biggest victim. All the systems focus on the emotional well-being of the mother at the cost of the child's rights.

[1] Because, at this point in time, every single piece of evidence we have ever seen supports the assertion that children living through their parents divorce have worse outcomes.

I'm married with children. If my wife sleeps around and doesn't tell me (or the children), who was hurt? As far as I can tell, no one.

Yet laws prohibiting adultery would punish her for this activity with the assumption that I'm the victim even though I suffered no injury.

> I'm married with children. If my wife sleeps around and doesn't tell me (or the children), who was hurt? As far as I can tell, no one.

> Yet laws prohibiting adultery would punish her for this activity with the assumption that I'm the victim even though I suffered no injury.

I'm not following your argument.

If your wife sleeps around and doesn't get caught, how do the laws against this punish her?

If she does get caught then your children are harmed, in which case the laws will punish her.

I don't see how it is possible that she doesn't get caught and still gets punished.

Laws against adultery create an incentive to catch people who otherwise bothered no one.

Same way that laws against homosexual behavior used to lead to police regularly raiding gay bars, etc.

The famous NYC Stonewall riot that launched the gay pride movement happened because patrons at the Stonewall bar got fed up with police harassment.

People are free to believe that gay bars, adultery, eating pork, etc. are immoral behavior. But there’s no justification for criminalization.

We're talking about adultery here; unless there's an adultery bar where married people can hook up, there's nothing analagous to gay bars.

> People are free to believe that gay bars, adultery, eating pork, etc. are immoral behavior. But there’s no justification for criminalization.

Once again, I point out that the consequences of adultery are objective harm on children. That was my entire point - that adultery is not a victimless crime.

Now look, I'm not making a judgement call on whether infidelity is immoral or not, I'm just pointing out that it frequently does result in measurable harm to any children involved.

In fact, in my first post I literally said that if there's no children, then I don't see a problem. You are presenting exceedingly unlikely scenarios[1] in support of ... what, exactly?

That any children involved aren't harmed by adultery?

After all, whether it is moral or not is irrelevant to the argument, so I see no point in discussing that aspect.

[1] For example, an adulter being punished by law while simultaneously managing to keep their family in the dark. Granted, it can happen, but that's really not likely at all.

pavlov wants some strange and wants you to be okay with that

In countries like Saudi Arabia, there are religious police who patrol public spaces looking for, among other things, married people who interact with members of the opposite sex.

It’s not some kind of outlandish example, this happens today. A woman hanging out with a male co-worker could get charged with adultery even though her family wasn’t injured in any way. And the publicity of the charge is clearly worse for the family’s children than whatever transpired between the married woman and the other man.

(The penalty for adultery is stoning to death. If mom is publicly murdered in that way, you probably agree it’s more traumatic to the children than a divorce?)

> In countries like Saudi Arabia, there are religious police who patrol public spaces looking for, among other things, married people who interact with members of the opposite sex.

> It’s not some kind of outlandish example, this happens today. A woman hanging out with a male co-worker could get charged with adultery even though her family wasn’t injured in any way. And the publicity of the charge is clearly worse for the family’s children than whatever transpired between the married woman and the other man.

Okay, and what does any of that have to do with adultery not being victimless? It's an irrelevant scenario when arguing that adultery is victimless, which is what you did.

Do repressive laws have a large negative impact on children? Sure, but what does that have to do with your assertion adultery is victimless?

Your scenario shows far-right laws in far-right states[1] being bad for children, but I still don't see where you get that adultery itself is victimless.

[1] I always find it funny that most Muslim-run countries are further to the right than the KKK used to be.

Palestine is definitely to the right of the KKK but see who their Western supporters are

The prevailing opinion is that the death penalty was handed down to provide leverage and incentivize restitution.

That's always been my understanding as well. I recall some cases in the last few years where this resulted in quite a bit of the funds being recovered.

Sadly I cannot remember the specific cases.

According to prosecutors, over a period of three years from February 2019, she ordered her driver to withdraw 108 trillion Vietnamese dong, more than $4bn (£2.3bn) in cash from the bank, and store it in her basement. The verdict requires her to return $27bn, a sum prosecutors said may never be recovered.

she stole around 2% of Vietnam's GDP annually.

You just can’t move this kind of money without the government noticing. She most likely fell out of favour for some other reason with the ruling party.

moreover, Viet Nam is a communist country. It may seem difficult for western capitalists to reconcile since "victimless" and "non-violent" are the litmus for most prosecutions but sentencing the bourgeoise to the death penalty for embezzlement is absolutely in keeping with the party line and doctrine. in 2008 the PRC had a tainted milk scandal, during which time it tried, sentenced, and executed two high level corporate executives for the fraud.

> 108 trillion Vietnamese dong, more than $4bn (£2.3bn) in cash from the bank, and store it in her basement

For personal curiosity, largest dong note is 500k , that's 208 million bills. Very lazy Theydidthemath attempt but 500k dong is ~$20 USD. If you look up visiualizations of how much 1B of 100 USD notes are, usually palletized, 1B USD is 12 pallets. 1T dong is 60 pallets. Her driver moved 120 pallets of dongs in her basement. ~480ft x 480ft / ~146m x 146m square tiled.

corruption or death penalty is barbaric?

There we go again, a western "civilised" citizen calling a sentence barbaric because it was passed by a nation they don't like. It's called justice dude.

You seem to belittle 'corruption' but it's actually root of a lot of evil.

I don’t know whether it’s warranted but corruption is the primary reasons a lot of these third world countries have such a hard time pulling themselves out of the hole. The damage they cause to millions of lives is probably way more impactful than some two bit murderer.

> Death penalty for corruption? That seems barbaric.

I think one can make an argument that death penalties themselves are barbaric given miscarriage of justice is a thing. And let's be honest, the electric chair is gruesome in the day and age of Nesdonal & Norcuron.

To single out captial punishment for a capitalist crime as barbarism reeks of double standards just because there's no precedent for it in the West.

Honestly, I think these are the varieties of crimes where capital punishment should apply - while a violent offender might be one day rehabilitated, someone who feels it’s ok to loot billions at the expense of their fellow man deserves to suffer schaphism.

The harm is infinitely greater - and we seemingly live in a world where this behaviour is more often than not rewarded with high office and plaudits.

I have a different perspective.

If someone commits fraud to the tune of $27B, that mainly means they just outfoxed rich people out of their money.

A lot more harm lies in a legally made $27B.

Corruption is barbaric.

Stealing 6% of a large country's GDP causes more aggregate harm than murdering ten individuals (which would be an obvious death penalty case).

Do you think people’s retirement accounts, livelihoods, and service meant for society wasn’t affected by crimes like this?

I’m from a third world. We were victims ourselves of some asshole who took our money and disappeared. Even in US our first immigration lawyer stole 18k from us which is a big deal when my dad was only making 30k. “Just sue them” easy to say when you’re rich.

If you want to host these awful parasites at your house go ahead. But I bet you won’t. You probably never had to suffer so be glad.

As a member of society I think people should who don’t want to contribute to it by engaging in truly heinous crimes (and yes I believe destroying people’s livelihoods by stealing their hard owned money in a malicious scheme is as bad killing or r working someone) should not be allowed to further leech resources after their awful behavior.