The co-founder of failed cryptocurrency exchange FTX pleaded not guilty to a seven count indictment charging him with wire fraud, securities fraud and money laundering.

An attorney for FTX co-founder Sam Bankman-Fried said in federal court Tuesday his client has to subsist on bread, water and peanut butter because the jail he’s in isn’t accommodating his vegan diet.

  • FlowVoid
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You said you would not send anyone to prison but cannot offer any alternatives.

    Now let me tell you why a policy of not punishing people like Lucy Letby is a terrible idea. She would become a target of revenge-minded people, possibly even the parents of the infants she killed.

    She would be tortured and/or killed by individuals who felt justice hadn’t been done. After all, if Lucy Letby doesn’t face serious repercussions for her actions, then her killer has no reason to worry either.

    For better or worse, people demand retribution. Government must provide it, otherwise people will take matters into their own hands.

      • FlowVoid
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You may trust your own judgement, but do you trust the judgment of literally everyone in the world?

        Recently a woman was killed by someone who was offended by her rainbow flag. Last year, a teenager killed a boyfriend who wanted to break up with her.

        Today, those are the actions only of unstable people. But they would become the norm if you allow everyone to be judge, jury, and executioner. How long do you suppose an LGBTQ person would survive in Idaho?

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          laws don’t stop people who want to do bad things. if vigilantism were normalized, mores would form around it, and there would be no need for laws or government.

          that’s far off. we need to liberate people from the material conditions that keep them in bondage to the capitalist class before we can start figuring out what the world will look like after teh revolution. in the mean time, i still don’t think it does us any good to pay to jail these people.

          • FlowVoid
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Vigilantism is no better than a criminal justice system. You still have rules that you must follow, and punishment for those who break the rules. Vigilantes could even lock someone in a cage if they felt like it.

            So I don’t see why you prefer subjecting someone to the whims of vigilante mob than to much more predictable criminal processing. If anything, vigilantes have embraced racism and class preferences far more openly than our legal system.

            And laws do stop people from doing bad things. That’s why lynching suddenly became less common after it was outlawed.

            • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              vigilantes don’t have a monopoly on violence and a labyrinthine bureaucracy preventing policy change

              • FlowVoid
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                A monopoly on violence is usually a good thing. The alternative is war, either on a local level (gang wars) or national (civil war). Wars are generally to be avoided.

                And policy change may be hard, but changing the attitudes of a mob is much harder. We passed laws against racism in the 1960s, we still haven’t eliminated racist mobs.

                • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  A monopoly on violence is usually a good thing. The alternative is war

                  that’s a false dichotomy

                  • FlowVoid
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Well, at least one alternative is war. Which I prefer to avoid, even if it requires a monopoly on violence.

                    And I will always prefer one group threatening violence to rule-breakers to multiple groups threatening violence to rule-breakers. Especially since multiple sets of rules are more likely to be contradictory.