- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Good. In my country, a former PM who embezzled 1.6B is on the verge of being set free, with little in the way of jail time, while a construction worker who stole a loaf of bread got 40 years. Wtf.
Edit: I got the bread story wrong. Not the 1.6B.
40 years for a loaf of bread?
https://abcnews.go.com/US/man-spent-36-years-prison-stealing-50-bakery/story?id=65264675
I was wondering if this was the case? Apparently it was because it was a fourth offense and the law was strict about sentencing no matter what.
Which is a thing I find utter bullshit BTW. No crime that petty should be punished that bad.
Got twice as much as Jean Valjean. Absolutely hilarious.
Someone should sens him a copy of the book. I think it will resonate with him quite a bit.
To be fair in those days it was hanging (at least in Britain) for just about everything…
Wait what’s the bread story?
The French justice system wins and the USA fails.
Elon and Trump will call France out for being anti democracy because of this. Changing the narrative that Europe isn’t a democracy anymore, but the extremely flawed American system is.
Waiting for the orange fascist to threaten France with tariffs for this.
What AMerica should have done with Trump
Worse than that would be justified.
After the January 6th insurrection he should have been hanged for treason.
Good. Still, any real consequences for her? Like prison time? Or will she be granted the usual politician/millionaire+ special treatment and just go on with her merry life minus the extra power?
Reminds me of Portugal’s former PM (Mr. Socrates), a few years ago, and ‘his’ 20M€. Or the convicted felon running the White House currently.
You’d think “not being president” is pretty life changing, but what do I know. In any case, there is a four year prison sentence in there as well. Presumably pending appeal. I have no idea how the French penal system deals with it after that if it holds.
“Not being president” is not a punishment. Just the absence of a reward for her corruption. If the worst she had was “not being rewarded”, then what stops every other crook from attempting to seize power?
Absence of a reward is not a consequence for breaking the rules. A consequence for breaking the law is the actual punishment, and that also serves as a warning to any other people wanting to do the same.
That’s what’s wrong with the system we currently have, and I’m glad at least she got prison out of it. Leniency is what got us here. There’s got to be actual hard consequences for mocking the system. Rules are only as good as the willingness to apply consequences for breaking them. It’s that simple.
That is some pretzel logic.
I mean, for one thing there is plenty of proof that harsher criminal punishments do not reduce crime in any way, so there’s that for the US-style “just jail more people for longer” nonsense.
But also, it doesn’t follow that leniency is what got you here when she has literally been punished with the penalty you were hoping for in the first place. It sure makes it sound like you were primed to think this was too lenient no matter what it was.
So whataboutism, distorting my words to suit your point and strawmen are your answers. Good to know rather early this conversation isn’t going anywhere, since both of us will always be right and wrong at the same time, according to each other.
One crook or two facing consequences does not excuse all the others that consistently get away. Specially the ones we don’t even know about. She’s just “the one that was caught this time”, with plenty more in line like her waiting for their chance to succeed where she could not. And your willingness to see her “not-reward” as if it was an actual punishment written in the law for her crimes speaks volumes - to the point it makes me wonder what potential role or benefit you’re getting (or hoping to get) from such a system. And before you twist my words to say you’re “not french”, or “not a politician”, know that what I’m saying goes way beyond one person, one position or one nation, so that logic won’t cut it.
Almost makes me think you’re primed to automatically defend scum like her no matter how corrupt she was. Anyways I don’t think this will be a productive discussion for either of us, so forgive me for not participating further.
Cheers.
It’s your prerogative, but I will clarify the point.
For one thing, her “not reward” is not a “not reward”, it is an actual punishment, codified in the criminal code of many democratic countries, where the penalty is the removal of the right to participate in elections or hold public office. This is a right all citizens have that is removed for a period of time as a punishment for a crime. It is a literal punishment. You are factually wrong.
Second, naming fallacies doesn’t meant hey happened. I did not bring up anybody else into this conversation, so not whataboutism, I did not misquote or rephrase your argument, so no strawman and the fact that I pointed out an inconsistency in your point doesn’t mean I “distorted” it.
And finally, I am not primed to “defend scum like her”. I have not, in fact, defended her at any point. She’s been found guilty of a crime, which makes her a criminal. What I am not is a demagogue willing to argue that harsher penalties, and specifically harsher penalties for people I don’t like, are the correct solution when every piece of serious research and information I have says they’re not. If it doesn’t help when the US does it to poor people for racist reasons it doesn’t help when aimed at politicians. Criminal penalties must be dissuasive, but that bar is pretty low and there is no proof that harsher penalties lead to more compliance.
I believe that in French law, for sentence up to two year, you have the right to ask for an alternative to jail. And considering that she isn’t homeless and has a steady job, she’ll get house-arrest out of business hours. (But it’s not just for politicians and billionaire, just that the average convict doesn’t have a house and a steady job, so their case is kinda empty at this stage)
But loosing her right to run for election is a pretty big one.
“Le Pen, who left the court before the hearing had finished, was also sentenced to four years in prison with two years suspended and and the other two to be served outside jail with an electronic bracelet.”
She can appeal the prison sentence, but the office part has taken effect even if she appeals.
I misread as left the country and was disappointed on second read…
(so she’s on probation for two years in practice, better than nothing I guess.)
Not to defend Le Pen but barring opponents from elections is on page one of the fascist playbook.
“Being really well dressed and using style to win people over is in the fascist playbook as well. Therefore drag queens are fascist.”
That’s you. That’s you right now.French courts are independent. She will appeal, and another court will condemn her and her friends in appeal.
The evidence is multitudinous and straightforward.
Countries that have special rules for powerful people are the fascist ones.
No one in this thread is saying she shouldn’t be punished for her crimes.
Nazi Bar Argument.
If you just let a bunch of Mobsters and their blood money into the race, soon, the race will be taken over by them.
No, I still think she should be in prison.
Yes, she’s a horrible person. I still think she should be in prison and be allowed to contest in elections. I would never bote for her but that’s a separate topic.
Who the hell votes for a convicted felon?
She got convicted of embezzlement of public money. By a court. Not by another political party.
Yep but that’s what Putin also says before throwing people in jail.
Courts can be corrupted and if that happens, an open election is the last chance before full dictatorship ensues.
And your evidence for the bold claim that the French justice system has been corrupted enough to fabricate and enter false evidence and land a conviction?
What about evidence that french media freedoms have been suppressed so badly that every single news agency has been intimidated into not revealing leaked evidence of fabrication?
I never said it was corrupted. I said in general, courts van be corrupted. See the supreme court of the USA for a recent example.
Ok, but in general so can any organisation/institution become corrupted. So can your local authority or the upper management of where you work or the local school board or the organisers of your favourite activity club.
Your statement is tantamount to saying “corruption exists and is bad”. Well yeah, it has since people put a name to greed.
Its good to keep an eye out for it, but unless there’s growing evidence for the case that French courts have been corrupted, like how there’s now a mountain’s worth for the US supreme court, then it’s not being skeptical it’s being very cynical.
Finally someone who actually wants a debate.
I agree that it’s not a problem until it is a problem. I think we differ in the way we are vigilant about defending the core of democracy.
Open elections, free speech and free press are very important to defend, even if you happen to dislike the person in question. I’d rather defend free speech of a person I hate than slowly carving away at it, one “victory” at a time. If one person doesn’t have free speech, there is no free speech left.
I see it the same with elections. If anyone can be barred from running in an election, the election isn’t open anymore.
I don’t see it as skeptical versus cynical. Maybe in your eyes. What I’ve seen lately though is that democracy can be over very quickly, or in a way that no one can stop, even if you can see the signs. Look at USA right now, it’s been going down hill for a while now but most people are realizing too late to do anything.
I’m not here to discuss France or their politics because I know nothing about it, nor about Le Pen. People seem to go very much into “it’s fine for now in France”.
It’s fine until it isn’t.
Bro, are you fighting this with whataboutism and false equivalency ? Troll detected opinion rejected
It’s not whataboutism if it’s on the same topic. I just raised a very real example where this is problematic.
In the near future, I bet we will see the same in America.
And what in this is false equivalency? We’re talking about banning criminals from elections, right?
Imma just point and laugh at you now cuz you are either dumb enough to beileve what you are saying or you are a troll
🫵😂
Very mature
Fight the arguments instead if they are so lame.
Holy mother of false equivalence.
So what’s the alternative then? Just let politicians get away with crimes and elect them anyway? Because that doesn’t seem to be going too well for the US.
The alternative is to punish them like any other citizen: prison or fines. All I’m against is disallowing them to run in elections.
If the people still vote for a convict, obviously the system is broken and needs to be fixed.
Except in her case, it’s been proved that she’s been embezzling. Your argument makes no sense, you’re comparing two completely different situations.
I’m definitely not saying Le Pen is innocent.
Navalny was found guilty of multiple crimes. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/04/russian-court-extends-alexei-navalny-sentence-in-penal-colony
Being charged a criminal is subject to the court system and if that ever gets corrupted, democracy is over.
Many people here say that it’s not the same in France; that the French court system has no evidence of corruption. I agree. I prefer to have laws in place before they are needed, rather than too late.
What you are suggesting is even more dangerous though. Law immunity for politicians is even worse
No I’m saying she should definitely be in jail but rhat shouldn’t stop her from being in the election, if she wants.
I guess Germany is fascist for banning the nazi party then? 🤔
It’s problematic at least. The Communist party is also banned in Germany.
When convicted for embezzlement, someone should NEVER be allowed to run for government offices ever again
Funnily enough, when the law was introduced a few years ago, her party wanted the penalty to be lifelong ineligibility. They are probably happy it’s 5 years, now.
Nah, always projection. Who would expect them to commit fraud if they wanted life long ineligibility?
Her party has no principles
coincidentally, according to conspiracy theorists and paranoid schizophrenics… Embezzlement is the “fake” charge that The Deep state, The Man, The new world order, the lizard people, etc will always bring against the persecuted patriotic good guy.
in other words. the European and Russian far right will say the charges are fake and that its a political witch hunt.
Oui!
Wow so when a fascist oligarch tries to buy your country you are allowed to say NO?
This is honestly a fantastic development. Vive la République!
Fuck its only for 5 years.
She was pushing for lifetime bans… When it wasn’t her.
Hitler was sentenced for 5 years too lmao
Trump should have been banned from running for public office
Of course Le Pen’s reaction is that this is politically motivated. I’m not familiar with the ins and outs of this case, but am assuming the verdict is sound. Reactions like this are in my mind more serious than the actual offence; they undermine the rule of law. If found guilty in her appeal they should take this reaction into account and ban her from office forever.
