Enforcing laws on rich/powerful, novel concept in some lands.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
Now do Farage.
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.
Hitler was sentenced for 5 years too lmao
For just five years, though. Don’t bury the lede.
It’s 5 more years than any other recent fascist has gotten
Oui!
deleted by creator
don’t be like us here in the US having a convicted felon run the show
I don’t have an issue with a public servant holding office and having a criminal record. People make mistakes, and people can change. However, I think the fact the current president has made public and copious comments about dismantling the democracy that exists while showing a blatant disdain for the rights of people, that I have an issue with.
Felons for government admin positions? Fine. But the head of a nation? Especially with the powers that the US political system gives? No way. There are plenty of other jobs that can be taken.
i think we need there to be like… enough time for someone to rehabilitate themselves. trump didn’t, and also the nature of his convictions were political corruption.
like. i think we fundamentally agree is what i’m saying, and i oversimplified it for my short little statement. i think there’s all sorts of people in prison right now who once out deserve to have their voting rights restored and be allowed to participate in society (drug charges and political imprisonments mostly), but the nature and recency of donald trump’s crimes should have disqualified him for running again, but the right is too addicted to power to risk giving it up to do the right thing.
I agree, the nature of the convictions should be a factor. I also agree that a sort of “cooldown” from a conviction would be reasonable, before having eligibility for holding political office restored. I’ve been leary of the simplified “convicts shouldn’t hold office” statement though, since the original intention of that lack of disqualification criteria was, to my understanding, to prevent political imprisonment from barring opponents from holding office. That seems like the sort of thing the current administration would jump on if they could, as well.
The “cooldown” would normally be a stint in prison. Unfortunately he was only convicted but not sentenced.
that’s very fair and i should have been more careful is what i was getting at
I think there are enough qualified people to be president in the all of 350 million in the states and that it’s OK if we disqualify people who’ve been convicted of a felony.
I think democracy would survive if not thrive.
Honestly, if we are going that far I say just do away with the president role all together. Democracies do fine with out this symbolic position.
So, you know how Erdogan recently threw bogus charges at a candidate and revoked the guy’s degree to make him ineligible? That’s why banning people with criminal records isn’t a good idea; the current government can just bar the opposition from running.
My guess would be you’re already long fucked when that becomes the case. There may be obstacles and exceptions needed but I still wouldn’t dismiss the idea.
Not an american but personally I think thats too low a bar for the leader of a country. Why shouldn’t we ask of the people we give ultimate power to that they be better than the average dipshit?
Because there are people getting into prison because they are political opponents. Navalny or The mayor of Istanbul are examples of such tactics.
I’m very much in favor of felons having access to work, but that doesn’t necessarily mean equal access to every single form of work, and I’d be quite content to ban them from the highest office in the land.
Next time- Vote.
i did. and i encouraged as many people as i could to do so as well. my struggle is the people saying voting does nothing and the only way to get our scumfuck politicians to do anything is the way malcolm x did. and those people reveal something about themselves when they say that. malcolm x said “the ballot or the bullet.” he necouraged democratic participation AND radical action. you have to both. and what’s more is voting takes so little effort. i find it hard to believe people who are unwilling to put in the effort to vote are willing to put in the effort to take radical action. and frankly, that’s what i see out in the streets. who was protesting with me before the election were people saying we need to vote. and it’s all those same people now. i don’t see all those “we hate blue maga” people here on lemmy out in real life putting the work in to support the movement of meaningful justice, equity, and peace.
My condolances.
Sure, but it needs to be because she actually committed a crime, not as a convenient way just to block someone you think might win from running. I am going to assume in this case she is guilty and was found guilty fairly.
I don’t know how politicaly motivated the harshness of the judgment was (and not in a “the politics in power wanted her gone”, more in a “the judiciary system realised shit is hitting the fan between US crazyness and Russian influence and decided to take a step and make an example”) but the evidence were damming.
Proof is: the defense didn’t even try to fight the evidence, rather the interpretation of it and the harshness of the sentence.
Another point to keep in mind: an ex president is being judged for corruption and the sentence requested by the DA is enormous. Apparently the judiciary system publicly told they wanted to put an end to a perceived leniency on the politics and regain public trust.
I’m just afraid this will result in an opposite effect.
It’s 5 years and statutory evidently. This isn’t as bad as you’re making it out to be.
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.
Her party has no principles
Nah, always projection. Who would expect them to commit fraud if they wanted life long ineligibility?
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.
For 5 years
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.
“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.
(so she’s on probation for two years in practice, better than nothing I guess.)
I misread as left the country and was disappointed on second read…
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.
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.
deleted by creator
Oh no.
What? A right-wing politician actually being held accountable for being awful and a criminal?
Never thought I’d see the day. Good job, France!
This is honestly a fantastic development. Vive la République!
