Live data from Hacker News

China sentences official to death for taking $325M in bribes

bbc.com

71–80 of 523 posts

Re: China sentences official to death for taking $325M in bribes

#71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Achilles heel of all whataboutism is assuming someone can't consistently criticize the new thing in addition to the original thing.

It's not whataboutism if you point out question was naive. (answer is the same everywhere and has always been the same) Inner circle leadership won't be prosecuted anywhere as long as their group holds some power. So, then, question is, how can this be improved?, can it be improved?

We improve it by ensuring the same people don't dominate the justice system and that prosecutions still happen whenever they don't. It was Biden's and his AG's job to do something about this and he fumbled.

Re: China sentences official to death for taking $325M in bribes

#72

I sometimes see people "celebrate" this, with the rationale that China is cracking down on white-collar crimes and handing out sentences unheard of in the west. But, are these sort of things just examples of selective prosecution? Would the inner circle members of CCP leadership realistically face the same prosecution and sentencing, if they were to be caught doing the same?

I think the way to determine how real this is: is the corruption allowed to damage the real economy? Most of the problems of Africa and South America are linked to that answer being "yes".

Re: China sentences official to death for taking $325M in bribes

#73
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least they try to appear anti-corruption—that's certainly more than you can say about the west.

Don't confuse "the west" with the US. The US is less than half of "the west".

They're not wrong. It's definitely spread throughout EU too.

Re: China sentences official to death for taking $325M in bribes

#75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Killing people in any context is barbaric because it is not possible to bring someone back from the dead. I’m not a law expert but it seems pretty basic that there shouldn’t be irreversible punishment. Also there should be equity which means everyone that does the same crime should face the same consequence, which doesn’t happen anywhere in the world as far as I can understand. So harsher punishment means people with…

> there shouldn’t be irreversible punishment I am not convinced. "You can no longer hold office" is a permanent punishment. Why should that not be allowed? > Also there should be equity which means everyone that does the same crime should face the same consequence I am also unconvinced. I don't think it is fair to treat a child like an adult and I think those in power should have more stringent standards and larger c…

> I am not convinced. "You can no longer hold office" is a permanent punishment. Why should that not be allowed?

Let's say that some new evidence comes out that exonerates the person. You can indeed reverse the "no longer hold office" punishment. You can't bring someone back from the dead.

Re: China sentences official to death for taking $325M in bribes

#76

I sometimes see people "celebrate" this, with the rationale that China is cracking down on white-collar crimes and handing out sentences unheard of in the west. But, are these sort of things just examples of selective prosecution? Would the inner circle members of CCP leadership realistically face the same prosecution and sentencing, if they were to be caught doing the same?

Xi Jinping rose to power on a message of anti-corruption, and part of the reason he remains in power on an indefinite term is by presenting himself as the "only trusted" person to maintain anti-corruption amongst all the factions.

While I'm sure he doesn't catch all corruption and the CCP overall has selective enforcement, the reason they do have measures like this is in large part because of Xi Jinping's specific reputation and positioning.

Re: China sentences official to death for taking $325M in bribes

#77

I sometimes see people "celebrate" this, with the rationale that China is cracking down on white-collar crimes and handing out sentences unheard of in the west. But, are these sort of things just examples of selective prosecution? Would the inner circle members of CCP leadership realistically face the same prosecution and sentencing, if they were to be caught doing the same?

>Would the inner circle members of CCP leadership realistically face the same prosecution and sentencing no need to speculate, it's already happened. Zhou Yongkang who was a member of the Politburo Standing Committee (the highest governing body in Chinese politics) was prosecuted, and up until that point people at the top were considered relatively untouchable. Xi also axed the last to vice chairmen of the central mi…

The Zhou Yongkang incident happened over a decade ago, it happened in roughly the first year of Xi Jinping's tenure, Zhou Yongkang was a supporter of the also-purged Bo Xilai, and while he was still in power he ran the department responsible for internal security. I don't doubt the guy was corrupt but this is exactly the sort of target you go after if you want to maintain your own grip on power.

Re: China sentences official to death for taking $325M in bribes

#78

I sometimes see people "celebrate" this, with the rationale that China is cracking down on white-collar crimes and handing out sentences unheard of in the west. But, are these sort of things just examples of selective prosecution? Would the inner circle members of CCP leadership realistically face the same prosecution and sentencing, if they were to be caught doing the same?

Xi has shown repeatedly that he’s serious about corruption. As others have noted, some of the highest civilian and military officials have been removed for it. Some sentenced to death.

He sees it as a challenge to his legitimacy and China’s power, which, as you’d expect are the most important things to him; even if you take the most cynical view.

Another timely example, because it is the World Cup, is the Chinese football programs. They’ve been decimated because of corruption prosecutions, both executives and players. It’s a major reason why China isn’t competitive on the global stage, which much smaller countries with significantly smaller budgets can compete. And, yes, Xi does care about competing in the World Cup. Prestige is very important to his concept of China’s honor and global standing.

Re: China sentences official to death for taking $325M in bribes

#79
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Killing people in any context is barbaric because it is not possible to bring someone back from the dead. I’m not a law expert but it seems pretty basic that there shouldn’t be irreversible punishment. Also there should be equity which means everyone that does the same crime should face the same consequence, which doesn’t happen anywhere in the world as far as I can understand. So harsher punishment means people with…

barbaric is society which has half of the worlwide population living with less than 6 USD per day in borderline slavery

Objection: relevance

Re: China sentences official to death for taking $325M in bribes

#80

I sometimes see people "celebrate" this, with the rationale that China is cracking down on white-collar crimes and handing out sentences unheard of in the west. But, are these sort of things just examples of selective prosecution? Would the inner circle members of CCP leadership realistically face the same prosecution and sentencing, if they were to be caught doing the same?

Killing people in any context is barbaric because it is not possible to bring someone back from the dead. I’m not a law expert but it seems pretty basic that there shouldn’t be irreversible punishment. Also there should be equity which means everyone that does the same crime should face the same consequence, which doesn’t happen anywhere in the world as far as I can understand. So harsher punishment means people with…

Just to be clear - you can't really "reverse" most things. The arrow of time only moves in one direction. People who are jailed and then exonerated do not have their lives "reversed". Their future circumstances are changed. Maybe they are compensated. But they still suffered in jail. You cannot erase that part of their reality anymore than you can raise the dead. This is not to discount your point that making amends while someone is still alive is seen as preferable.

Of course, attempts are made to "reverse" even after someone had been put to death. Posthumous pardons are a thing. It may not bring anything to the person who has passed, but it could give somewhat similar benefits to living descendants.

It's just to say we shouldn't undermine how impactful something like incarceration is on the theory that it is "reversible". Evidence suggests such experiences mess people up in pretty severe ways. Lets also remember thinking of death in these distinct terms may be very cultural. Few penal systems escape barbarity. There are worse things than death. There are many instances or societies were it is preferable or expected people kill themselves rather than go through something like the ignominy of incarceration.

As to the last line, I'm also not sure. Brutal societies have a way of turning on themselves. Nations that accord more protections to their people are generally a better place for their rulers, even if the reverse is not always true. Personally I would love a legal system that baked into its norms higher punishments for people with more power. I think these have existed in the past, even if enforced through less modern mechanisms.

It is also the case that people in power do things that people with less power are incapable of. Getting rid of notions of executive privilege or qualified immunity would be a good start. The way the law is written currently, people in power won't simply not be punished - they won't even be charged. Take George Bush. Did he ever even just have to testify under oath about the rationale for the Iraq War once? Would the United States really descend into a banana republic if he had been charged for perjury or war crimes? It seems like the push in that direction can instead trace its genesis to the fact that in America, we evidently make our leaders untouchable.

Post reply on HN